NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, Rushdie is going to be knighted. Personally I could not get through most of his books...except maybe Midnight's children...which was mildly readable. That does not take away my respect for him daring to take on subjects that are gagged by religious taboo.

Anyways...methinks this will add to the accusations of "west provoking muslims" theory doing the rounds in teh interwebs....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/16/queens.honors.ap/index.html
LONDON, England (AP) -- Author Salman Rushdie, who was forced into hiding for a decade after Iran's spiritual leader ordered his assassination, is to receive a knighthood in the latest honors list, Buckingham Palace has announced.

The "Midnight's Children" author, along with CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour as well as a KGB double agent and perhaps the government's toughest human rights critic are on the list marking Queen Elizabeth II's official birthday Saturday.

"I am thrilled and humbled to receive this great honor, and am very grateful that my work has been recognized in this way," Rushdie said in a statement.

Rushdie is one of the most prominent novelists of the late 20th century and is known for his unique mix of history with magical realism. His 13 books have won numerous awards, including the Booker Prize for "Midnight's Children" in 1981. In 1993 the novel won the "Booker of Bookers," a special award honoring the best novel in the 25-year history of the prize.

He went into hiding after Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a 1989 fatwa, or religious edict, ordering Muslims to kill the author because his novel "The Satanic Verses" allegedly insulted Islam.

The Iranian government declared in 1998 that it would not support but could not rescind the fatwa. Rushdie says he receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on February 14 letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to end his life.:p

Rushdie says he receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on February 14 letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to end his life.

Aww, isn't that nice? Shows that they're a nice bunch of people, doesn't it? :D

To be honest, I was more glad we've now got Sir Beefy than Sir Salman.

The Iranian government declared in 1998 that it would not support but could not rescind the fatwa. Rushdie says he receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on February 14 letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to end his life.

I'm sure Andaras Prime or Oceandrive will be along shortly to explain why Iran were perfectly justified in calling for Rushdie's death. ;)

I haven't read any of his books, although I've been meaning to read the Satanic Verses just to see what all the fuss is about. I'm glad he's been knighted after all he's been through.

Don't bother - it was unreadable, even those who Fatwa'd him, if such a verb is possible, didn't read it.

Midnight's Children, however, was a beautiful book.

Sir Salman - tis a silly name.

Aww, isn't that nice? Shows that they're a nice bunch of people, doesn't it? :D

To be honest, I was more glad we've now got Sir Beefy than Sir Salman.

Damn you, I wanted to make a Beef Or Salmon joke!

Damn you, I wanted to make a Beef Or Salmon joke!
:p I was considering tacking one on the end of my post, but decided against it.

Anyway. Now that Botham's been knighted, can we call him Sir Loin?

I'm more worried about the double agent, surely there cover will be blown in this big event? (unless its a triple agent)

I'm more concerned about Sir Beefy to be honest. He deserves it, having raised some £10 million for Leukemia charities, and having been a damn good cricketer.

Iran's whining about the decision (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2105311,00.html).

"Honouring and commending an apostate and hated figure will definitely put the British officials [in a position] of confrontation with Islamic societies," he said. "This act shows that insulting Islamic sacred [values] is not accidental. It is planned, organised, guided and supported by some western countries."

Yes, how dare a western government give a knighthood to an 'apostate'. :rolleyes:

:p I was considering tacking one on the end of my post, but decided against it.

Anyway. Now that Botham's been knighted, can we call him Sir Loin?

he uses the pseudonym "Bass" often, I hear.

i started reading the satanic verses recently. haven't managed more than a few pages yet. reading other books instead now. while i view knighthoods as pointless anachronisms i think it's good that he's got an official seal of approval from the powers that be in the name of free speech. best thing they've done in a long time.

I found the Satanic verses oddly readable. It had a slow start, but gets more interesting later on. I managed to lose the book though, so I never managed to finish it.

As to the knighthooding that was going on today, my awareness was lacking.

As I am typing this, the news (BBC News 24) is reporting that the Government of Pakistan has condemned the award to Rushdie as an "affront to the Prophet".

Did anyone not see that coming?

Judging by the comments it seems that Rushdie is one of those authors who you either love or you hate. This thread needs a poll.

As I am typing this, the news (BBC News 24) is reporting that the Government of Pakistan has condemned the award to Rushdie as an "affront to the Prophet".

Did anyone not see that coming?

It was predictable, but it's about time that someone in the government (I assume it was the government who recommended Rushdie) stood up for free speech.

It was predictable, but it's about time that someone in the government (I assume it was the government who recommended Rushdie) stood up for free speech.

Oh, I'm not condemning the decision... not at all. I'm not a fan of his writing, so I wouldn't necessarily have recommended him for any award based on "services to literature", but that's subjectivity for you :)

It was predictable, but it's about time that someone in the government (I assume it was the government who recommended Rushdie) stood up for free speech.

Yes, and if they started doing it for people who disagreed with them a bit more, it would be even better. This is the bunch who made sure that the Chinese PM didnt have to be affronted by the sight of "free tibet" protestors after all. Not to mention the 2 or 3 prosectutions under the official secrets act.....

Yes, and if they started doing it for people who disagreed with them a bit more, it would be even better. This is the bunch who made sure that the Chinese PM didnt have to be affronted by the sight of "free tibet" protestors after all. Not to mention the 2 or 3 prosectutions under the official secrets act.....

Agreed, the government has an atrocious record when it comes to free speech, that's why it's nice to see them doing anything positive. Sadly I don't see the situation getting any better when Brown takes over.

Special report: the US elections

Salman Rushdie
Thursday January 4, 2001
The Guardian

Every Vote down in Voteville liked Voting a Lot,
But the GRINCH, who lived West of Voteville,
did Not.

For Voting was Counting - not just Adding and such
But finding out if you Amounted to Much.
In this case, the question was, who, in a pinch,
Amounted to More? Did the Veep? Or the Grinch?

-snip-

Why worry? The Constitution is strong,
The judges who judge it can never be wrong,
The Veep may have won, but he's lost.
And that's that.
Voteville accepts the high judges' fiat.
There isn't a holler, there isn't a scream,
Think of the dollar! Let's play for the team!
So everyone okays the Grinch's régime,
And things are probably
probably
probably
probably
probably
Not as bad as they seem.

"Four whole years of Grinchdom!"
the Grinch cries with glee
"There's Only One Person who Counts now
...That's
ME."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,417622,00.html

... with apologies to Dr Seuss indeed. :D

Judging by the comments it seems that Rushdie is one of those authors who you either love or you hate. This thread needs a poll.

Done.

As I am typing this, the news (BBC News 24) is reporting that the Government of Pakistan has condemned the award to Rushdie as an "affront to the Prophet".

Did anyone not see that coming?

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/19rushdie.htm
Lashing out at Britain for its 'insensitive' move to award knighthood to controversial India-born author Salman Rushdie, Pakistan has sought the scrapping of the decision and an apology from it.

The government also asked Islamic countries to break diplomatic ties with Britain if it refuses to rescind its move to honour the controversial writer and apologise for it.

"The Islamic countries should break diplomatic relations with Britain unless it apologises and withdraw the title," Pakistan's Religious Affairs Minister Ejaz-ul-Haq said in the National Assembly on Monday.

Striking a hardline posture on the issue, Haq, the son of former military ruler Zia-ul Haq, said suicide attack would be legitimate if it meant to protect Prophet Muhammad.

"Suicide attack on anyone committing blasphemy is justified," Haq was quoted as saying by Dawnews TV in Islamabad.

But apparently at the instance of Pakistan Foreign Office, he retracted his statement later in the Assembly saying he did not justify suicide attacks but only spoke about the reasons why they occurred.:rolleyes:

Haq also asked Muslims to boycott British diplomats, forcing their government to withdraw the 'Sir' title to Rushdie.

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tasnim Aslam said the decision is 'obviously insensitive to the sentiments of Muslims around the world' and that Rushdie had 'insulted and maligned' Muslims. She said Islamabad would convey its sentiments officially to London [Images].

"We deplore the decision of the British government to knight him," Aslam said.

Britain's move would undermine efforts to bring harmony and fostering dialogue among civilizations, she said.

Western nations are accusing the Muslims of terrorism and extremism but they are themselves indulged in decisions, which are aimed at hurting the sentiments of the Muslims, he said.

Britain's decision to give award to Rushdie is a serious matter and a challenge to 1.5 billion Muslims across the world, he said.

"If the Muslims did not show unity, such problems will increase and the time can come when Rushdie reach the British House of Lords," he added.:rolleyes:

Earlier, the Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution protesting the decision and demanded its withdrawal asserting that Rushdie in 'Satanic Verses,' a novel published in 1988, used derogatory words against Prophet Muhammad.

Well, Rushdie is going to be knighted. Personally I could not get through most of his books...except maybe Midnight's children...which was mildly readable. That does not take away my respect for him daring to take on subjects that are gagged by religious taboo.

Anyways...methinks this will add to the accusations of "west provoking muslims" theory doing the rounds in teh interwebs....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/16/queens.honors.ap/index.html

Damn you! I thought I was going to read an article about them knighting Salman Khan! :mad:

Where's the "don't give a shit" option?

Anyway, wasn't his death called for for some unbelievably lame reason? Wasn't the basic reason that he though Muhammad could make a mistake?

I found the Satanic verses oddly readable. It had a slow start, but gets more interesting later on. I managed to lose the book though, so I never managed to finish it.

As to the knighthooding that was going on today, my awareness was lacking.

When the ayatollahs did what they do best against Rushdie--instigate mindless violence and hatred--I went out and bought not one, but two copies of The Satanic Verses. I was living in the DC area at the time, and I made sure the second copy was plainly visible on the DC Metro when I took it home from the bookstore.

Can't say I really liked the book--seemed like more pretentious modernistic babbling to me--but damned if I was going to let some towel-headed sonofabitch determine what I was going to read.

Props to Sir Salmon, and props to the UK for recognizing him. And to hell with the ayatollahs and their fat-wads, and Ejaz ul-Haq and all others who agree with him.

Damn you! I thought I was going to read an article about them knighting Salman Khan! :mad:

lol...Salman Khan ought to be put in jail.

Where's the "don't give a shit" option?

Anyway, wasn't his death called for for some unbelievably lame reason? Wasn't the basic reason that he though Muhammad could make a mistake?

Well, if you don't give a shit, then don't post. :p

The book has some pretty heavy....umm...blaspheming on Muhammed and Islamic beliefs.

But it would have been virtually unnoticed if not for the hukm (not a fatwa, many make the mistake) by Khomeini.

lol...Salman Khan ought to be put in jail

I know. I hate Indian movies and Indian movie stars in general. You got me all riled up for nothing.

The book has some pretty heavy....umm...blaspheming on Muhammed and Islamic beliefs.

I could characterize The DaVinci Code as similarly "blasphemous" toward Christianity.

I don't recall any Christians, let alone Christian religious authorities or political leaders, calling for killing Dan Brown.

Just another example of the greater maturity, to say the least, of Christianity as compared to Islam.

I could characterize The DaVinci Code as similarly "blasphemous" toward Christianity.

I don't recall any Christians, let alone Christian religious authorities or political leaders, calling for killing Dan Brown.

Just another example of the greater maturity, to say the least, of Christianity as compared to Islam.

*shrug* you've had 700 more years to grow up, and you've still got a long way to go.

He probably ought to refuse it given the things he said about the UK literary community before he left for 'greener' pastures in the US.

I could characterize The DaVinci Code as similarly "blasphemous" toward Christianity.

I don't recall any Christians, let alone Christian religious authorities or political leaders, calling for killing Dan Brown.

Just another example of the greater maturity, to say the least, of Christianity as compared to Islam.

DaVinci Code's got nothing on Satanic Verses.

You don't have to trivialise to prove the point that death penalty for writing books is barbarity.

DaVinci Code's got nothing on Satanic Verses.

You don't have to trivialise to prove the point that death penalty for writing books is barbarity.

Indeed. Not yet having gotten around to reading any of his books, I still commend his knighting as a support of the most important of all rights-- free expression. It is through this right that we protect all our others.

I could characterize The DaVinci Code as similarly "blasphemous" toward Christianity.

I don't recall any Christians, let alone Christian religious authorities or political leaders, calling for killing Dan Brown.

Just another example of the greater maturity, to say the least, of Christianity as compared to Islam.


And when you learn that level of maturity yourself with regards to a number of issues, that indeed will be progress.

And when you learn that level of maturity yourself with regards to a number of issues, that indeed will be progress.

I have yet to threaten anyone on this board with violent death, so I submit that I already meet this criterion. Nice try :p

DaVinci Code's got nothing on Satanic Verses.


To the contrary, IMO The DaVinci Code's assertions concerning Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, Christ's nature and Opus Dei, among other things, which are either without foundation or factually untrue, are far more offensive than Rushdie's "Mahound" or the reference to the three goddesses in the "verses." Furthermore, the authenticity of the verses in question has been a subject of discussion since the 9th century among Moslem scholars themselves, unlike the 21st century fabrication that is DVC.

You don't have to trivialise to prove the point that death penalty for writing books is barbarity.

Nothing trivializing about it. See above.

I don't think he gets the title 'sir' because he's not British...

DaVinci Code's got nothing on Satanic Verses.

You don't have to trivialise to prove the point that death penalty for writing books is barbarity.

Well, I remember reading the book a good while back, and although this might be due to my not very detailed knowledge of Islam, I didn't find anything in there I could construe as blasphemous.

And I'm willing to bet my grandmother's savings account that none of those outraged Pakistani officials ever read the book at all, nor have the faintest idea what it's about.

He shouldn’t get a Knighthood because he has done bollocks all for this country. I have even heard people suggest J.K Rowling should be knighted.

On the other hand, why should we bow to the wants of pathetic little country 5000 miles away?

I hope they also gave him a fine steed and a splendid suit of armour.

He shouldn’t get a Knighthood because he has done bollocks all for this country. I have even heard people suggest J.K Rowling should be knighted.

On the other hand, why should we bow to the wants of pathetic little country 5000 miles away?

Knighthoods aren't distributed solely on the grounds of having done the country a service. If they were, the likes of Botham, Charlton and other sportsmen would have bloody tenuous claims to their knighthoods.

However, Dame J.K. Rowling would be obscene; she can't even write a decent book.

I liked Rushdie's books, but I don't see why we have to knight the man. So he wrote some books despite religious taboo. He hardly did anything of service to his country. Rushdie exercised his rights. Should I be knighted for calling the Iranian president an asshole? No. To (Sir) Salman, I say, "Meh."

I liked Rushdie's books, but I don't see why we have to knight the man. So he wrote some books despite religious taboo. He hardly did anything of service to his country. Rushdie exercised his rights. Should I be knighted for calling the Iranian president an asshole? No. To (Sir) Salman, I say, "Meh."

Didn't the Beatles get knighted? It's not like they did any great service to their country.

Didn't the Beatles get knighted? It's not like they did any great service to their country.

They were, of course, born in Britain..... well, Liverpool at any rate.

They should be.

Perhaps, however, the definition would be subjective in the extreme; would sportsmen, musicians and British writers qualify, or would the title only be afforded to political figures, civil servants, militray personnel and the like?

Knighthoods aren't distributed solely on the grounds of having done the country a service. They should be.

Didn't the Beatles get knighted? It's not like they did any great service to their country. The Beatles paved the way for the British Invasion (musically) of the entire world, and their music encapsulated an entire decade. They deserve an OBE at least.

Perhaps, however, the definition would be subjective in the extreme; would sportsmen, musicians and British writers qualify, or would the title only be afforded to political figures, civil servants, militray personnel and the like? All of those things would be justifiable reasons for a knighthood. As long as they actually deserved it. So a writer like Shakespeare in the modern world would deserve a knighthood, whereas some middle of the line writer would not.

T
All of those things would be justifiable reasons for a knighthood. As long as they actually deserved it. So a writer like Shakespeare in the modern world would deserve a knighthood, whereas some middle of the line writer would not.

So a winner of the 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), and the Aristeion Prize (European Union) would be just "some middle of the line writer"? I think you underestimate his literary influence a bit.

I don't think he gets the title 'sir' because he's not British...

Yeah he does (if he wants). It's just americans that can't use it (at their own choice).

He still shouldn't though, given his feelings about the UK.

Shakespeare influenced the whole of human culture; his works are almost universally known.

Rushdie's books, on the other hand, while good, hardly have the same reach. Compared to Shakespeare, Rushdie is just a middle of the line writer.

Shakespeare influenced the whole of human culture; his works are almost universally known.

Rushdie's books, on the other hand, while good, hardly have the same reach. Compared to Shakespeare, Rushdie is just a middle of the line writer.

I agree with that.

This debacle smells like trolling (in real life).

I'm sure Andaras Prime or Oceandrive will be along shortly to explain why Iran were perfectly justified in calling for Rushdie's death. ;)

I haven't read any of his books, although I've been meaning to read the Satanic Verses just to see what all the fuss is about. I'm glad he's been knighted after all he's been through.

so why not knight him when he was under the fatwah?

why wait till the first batch of knighthoods after the iranians made monkeys out of the brits because her majesty's navy cant read maps?

its an up yours to the iranians, political manipulation of the british honours system and opening the wounds of the satanic verses book for no good reason.

Some good ol effigy and flag burning in Pakistan

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/swornDM1806_468x694.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/unionburnDM1806_468x327.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=462779&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490
The international row over Salman Rushdie's knighthood escalated after Islamic extremists placed a £80,000 bounty on the writer's head.

The British Government expressed its "deep concern" over reported comments by one of Pakistan's ministers which suggested Rushdie's knighthood could justify suicide attacks.

The announcement comes amid continuing protests in Pakistan over the awarding of the honour to the controversial author.

Earlier in the day Pakistan's government summoned Britain's high commissioner in Islamabad for talks on the escalating row.

Iranian conservatives attacked the Queen over Salman Rushdie's knighthood, with a top MP saying the British monarch lived in a dreamworld and a newspaper labelling her an "old crone".

"Salman Rushdie has turned into a hated corpse which cannot be resurrected by any action," Mohammad Reza Bahonar, first deputy speaker of Iran's parliament, said in an address to the house.

"The action by the British queen in knighting Salman Rushdie, the apostate, is an unwise one," he said, to loud cheers from MPs.

"The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important."

[Well, then the proper response would be to totally ignore the bestowment of titles by Britain, no? :confused:]

Hardline daily Jomhuri Eslami also launched a scathing attack on the queen, describing the monarch as an "old crone" whose action was a "grimace to the Islamic world".

"The question is what the old British crone sought by knighting Rushdie, to help him? Well, her act only shortens Rushdie's pathetic life," it added.

The daily also linked the award of the knighthood - which marked the queen's 81st birthday - to a controversial party at the British embassy on Thursday celebrating the same occasion.

Dozens of Islamist students protested against the party, hurling stones, eggs and paint filled bags outside the doors of the compound in southern Tehran and vented anger against Iranians who attended the event.

Tory MP Paul Goodman (Wycombe) accused ministers of failing to deal with incitements to terrorism in the UK and said Mr al-Haq's remarks were such an incitement.

"Although he's since sought partially to withdraw his remarks, no condemnation of them has been forthcoming to date from a higher level within the government of Pakistan," said Mr Goodman.

In London, Lord Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim peer, said he had been appalled by the award to a man he accused of having 'blood on his hands'.

[
What blood? WTF is this guy on to?:confused:]

In Pakistan, where effigies of the Queen and 59-year-old Rushdie were burned, a minister appeared to justify suicide bombings as a response to the knighthood.

"This is an occasion for the world's 1.5billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," said Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, Pakistan's religious affairs minister.

"The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism," he told his country's parliament.

"If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so, unless the British government apologises and withdraws the 'sir' title."

The parliament in Islamabad - supposedly a key ally in the war on terror - then backed a government-sponsored motion demanding an apology and the withdrawal of the honour from the The Satanic Verses author. [Don't they have anything else to do....like running the country:confused:]

.....

As a backlash begins in the Muslim world against Rushdie's knighthood, same way as last year's furore over 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper.

There were violent protests throughout Europe and the Middle East, Danish citizens were warned not to travel to Arab countries and more than a dozen countries removed Danish goods from their shops.

Labour's Lord Ahmed expressed surprise at the decision to give a knighthood to Rushdie, who was placed under a fatwa, or death sentence, by Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini 18 years ago after the publication of the allegedly blasphemous The Satanic Verses.

"I was appalled to hear Salman Rushdie had been given a knighthood," Lord Ahmed said.

"Two weeks ago the Prime Minister was calling for building relations between the Muslim world and Britain, then suddenly this knighthood is given to a man who has not only been abusive to Muslims, but also to Christians - because he used abusive language towards Jesus Christ.":confused:

He said whoever had made the decision had made Gordon Brown's job very difficult as he takes over as Prime Minister.

"The confidence that was being built within Britain with inter-faith work and community cohesion work has once again been damaged because of this provocative decision.

"This man not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world.

"Forgiving and forgetting is one thing, but honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of, because of what he did, I think is going a bit too far."

In the Iranian capital Tehran, officials of a group called The Organisation to Commemorate the Martyrs of the Muslim World said a £80,000 reward should be paid to anyone 'who was able to execute the apostate Salman Rushdie'.

Forouz Rajaefar, the general secretary, said that the decision to honour Rushdie with a knight-hood demonstrated the animosity of Britain towards Islam.

He added: "The British and the supporters of the anti-Islam Salman Rushdie could rest assured that the writer's nightmare will not end until the moment of his death and we will bestow kisses on the hands of whomsoever is able to execute this apostate."

Iranian MP Mehdi Kuchakzadeh declared: "Rushdie died the moment the late Imam (Khomeini) issued the fatwa.

"It would be a hollow dream for the Queen of England to think that with such a move she could revive one of her mercenaries to oppose Islam. Granting a knighthood to Salman Rushdie will only lead to further hatred towards Britain."

In the eastern Pakistan city of Multan, hard-line students burned effigies of the Queen and Rushdie.

About 100 students carrying banners condemning the author also chanted, 'Kill him! Kill him!'

Asim Dahr, a student leader demanded Rushdie face Islamic justice. "This Queen has made a mockery of Muslims by giving him a title of sir," he told the demonstrators.

Pakistan's foreign ministry spokesman Tasnim Aslam said Rushdie's knighthood would hamper inter-faith understanding and that Islamabad would protest to London.

"We deplore the decision of the British government to knight him. Salman Rushdie has tried to insult and malign Muslims."

As his apparent justification of suicide bombers was reported, ul-Haq took a step back and said he was trying to stress what was at the root of terrorism.

The reignited bitterness has caused concern at Scotland Yard. The taxpayer has already spent £10million protecting Rushdie 24-hours a day.

He is afforded the same level of protection as Lady Thatcher or some of the royals.

Robert Brinkley, British high commissioner to Pakistan, defended the honour for Rushdie for his contributions to literature.

"It is simply untrue to suggest that this in any way is an insult to Islam or the Prophet Mohammed, and we have enormous respect for Islam as a religion and for its intellectual and cultural achievements," Mr Brinkley said.

Asked if he was concerned it could provoke unrest in Pakistan, he replied: "We will just have to see where it goes from here. There's certainly no reason for that."

Some good ol effigy and flag burning in Pakistan

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/swornDM1806_468x694.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/unionburnDM1806_468x327.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=462779&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

It's Pakistan, what else is new? Though the daily mail is, from what I hear, the Fox News of british newspapers.

Shakespeare influenced the whole of human culture; his works are almost universally known.

Rushdie's books, on the other hand, while good, hardly have the same reach. Compared to Shakespeare, Rushdie is just a middle of the line writer.

I assume you were replying to my post there (try the quote feature, it makes life so much easier!). Shakespeare in his time was not even known all over England. He gradually became famous in the centuries afterwards. Rushdie is already more famous now than Shakespeare ever was during his life.
I read Rushdie's books, and I (and a number of other literary people) find them highly influential.

This is the right thing to do, and damn the reaction among barbarians.

Anyone who thinks writers should be killed for criticizing religion ought to be introduced to something called "Lake City M118."

That goes for ayatollahs, imams, priests, deacons, bishops, street protesters, pastors &al &al &al

Can't say I really liked the book--seemed like more pretentious modernistic babbling to me--but damned if I was going to let some towel-headed sonofabitch determine what I was going to read.

I can't help but laugh at the thought of all those redneck americans who must be trying to read Salman's "pretentious modernistic babbling" these days.

I bought a copy of the Satanic Verses back in the day, but I never could read it. "Babbling Garbage" is how I would best describe what little I did read.

Does Rushdie deserve a knighthood? I don't know. It's not my decision.

The muslim world on the other hand really does need to get over itself. If you find the book offensive then don't read it. There are books out there that insult every other religion in the world, and to the best of my knowledge no one is calling for the death of their authors.

I bought a copy of the Satanic Verses back in the day, but I never could read it. "Babbling Garbage" is how I would best describe what little I did read.

Does Rushdie deserve a knighthood? I don't know. It's not my decision.

The muslim world on the other hand really does need to get over itself. If you find the book offensive then don't read it. There are books out there that insult every other religion in the world, and to the best of my knowledge no one is calling for the death of their authors.

I sometimes can't help but wonder how insecure in their belief these people must be to be threatened by such profane things as books or cartoons.

Personally, I tend to believe that god doesn't exist, and I don't feel threatened by the bible or the Q'uran....

Heh I just don't understand why he was knighted. Mind you , whats the point of a knighthood anyway?

Heh I just don't understand why he was knighted. Mind you , whats the point of a knighthood anyway?

For "Services to Literature" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6756149.stm), apparently.

I sometimes can't help but wonder how insecure in their belief these people must be to be threatened by such profane things as books or cartoons.

Personally, I tend to believe that god doesn't exist, and I don't feel threatened by the bible or the Q'uran....

Christianity had the same problem at right around the same age. Maybe it has something to do with monotheism.

So a winner of the 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), and the Aristeion Prize (European Union) would be just "some middle of the line writer"? I think you underestimate his literary influence a bit.


You miss the point. Shakespeare is a universal, global literary influence; quotations from Hamlet, Macbeth and the like are cited regularly, for any number of purposes, and numerous celebrated authors and poets have taken reference and technique from Shakespeare. Whatever the semantic and technical merits of Rushdie's work, the same cannot be said for him.

For "Services to Literature" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6756149.stm), apparently.

Bwhaha services to literature mmmmppghghh!:D

Now that is funny!

You miss the point. Shakespeare is a universal, global literary influence; quotations from Hamlet, Macbeth and the like are cited regularly, for any number of purposes, and numerous celebrated authors and poets have taken reference and technique from Shakespeare. Whatever the semantic and technical merits of Rushdie's work, the same cannot be said for him.

I assume that's largely to do with the age of Shakespeare's work. The simple fact that Rushdie's work hasn't been around for a comparable amount of time to make a similar impact on society does not reduce the significance of his work.

And I feel you might slightly overestimate Shakespeare's impact in calling it global... the mere fact that most native English speakers have heard the phrase "To be or not to be" is no indication of the overall impression of Shakespeare's works. Next time somebody quotes Shakespeare to you, ask him if he knows what work that line was from and to give you a summary of the plot. I've had hours of fun doing that with Goethe and Schiller.

I assume that's largely to do with the age of Shakespeare's work. The simple fact that Rushdie's work hasn't been around for a comparable amount of time to make a similar impact on society does not reduce the significance of his work.

And I feel you might slightly overestimate Shakespeare's impact in calling it global... the mere fact that most native English speakers have heard the phrase "To be or not to be" is no indication of the overall impression of Shakespeare's works. Next time somebody quotes Shakespeare to you, ask him if he knows what work that line was from and to give you a summary of the plot. I've had hours of fun doing that with Goethe and Schiller.

To be fair, the people who quote Shakespeare to me probably do, but I appreciate the point. However, it simply demonstrates the extent to which Shakespeare is a central cultural influence in western culture; his quotations have, through repeated use, assumed a significance and meaning of their own.

In any case, I assure you, Rushdie will not be cited to the extent Shakespeare, Wilde, Coleridge or Fitzgerald are. Though age does increase the influence of an author, Rushdie remains, unlike the above, little more than the favourite of the pseudo-intellectual at present; few who read his works either understand, or seek to understand, their full significance.

Frankly, Terry Pratchett deserves a knighthood more than Rushdie.

Frankly, Terry Pratchett deserves a knighthood more than Rushdie.

Indeed and he has a much better dress sense too.

Indeed and he has a much better dress sense too.

Whic, really, should be grounds enough for a knighthood...:D

To be fair, the people who quote Shakespeare to me probably do, but I appreciate the point. However, it simply demonstrates the extent to which Shakespeare is a central cultural influence in western culture; his quotations have, through repeated use, assumed a significance and meaning of their own.

In any case, I assure you, Rushdie will not be cited to the extent Shakespeare, Wilde, Coleridge or Fitzgerald are. Though age does increase the influence of an author, Rushdie remains, unlike the above, little more than the favourite of the pseudo-intellectual at present; few who read his works either understand, or seek to understand, their full significance.

Frankly, Terry Pratchett deserves a knighthood more than Rushdie.

*lol If quotability is a criterium for knighthood, most certainly.
I only read one of Rushdie's books, and that was over a decade ago, so I don't pressume myself to be an authority on his works. But I do recognise that he is well-known and well-read even outside the anglophone areas of the planet. When working in a library in Germany, his works had a noticable high turnover (both visible in the lending statistics and in the fact that we had to replace his books about every 1 to 2 years as they were falling appart due to frequent use). They were in fact more popular statitically speaking than Terry Pratchett's books. Wilde, Coleridge and Fitzgerald are largely unknown outside of anglophone countries, except to a small minority mostly consisting of people either studying English or Literature.

I can't of course say if that merits a knighthood or not, nor will I try to predict the influence Rushdie's books might have in a century or two and compare them to the influence of Shakespeare in the same timeframe. That's something time will tell.

*lol If quotability is a criterium for knighthood, most certainly.
I only read one of Rushdie's books, and that was over a decade ago, so I don't pressume myself to be an authority on his works. But I do recognise that he is well-known and well-read even outside the anglophone areas of the planet. When working in a library in Germany, his works had a noticable high turnover (both visible in the lending statistics and in the fact that we had to replace his books about every 1 to 2 years as they were falling appart due to frequent use). They were in fact more popular statitically speaking than Terry Pratchett's books. Wilde, Coleridge and Fitzgerald are largely unknown outside of anglophone countries, except to a small minority mostly consisting of people either studying English or Literature.

I can't of course say if that merits a knighthood or not, nor will I try to predict the influence Rushdie's books might have in a century or two and compare them to the influence of Shakespeare in the same timeframe. That's something time will tell.

Once more, we return to the problem of the knighthood. The fact I don't give a flying fuck about non-anglophone literature for the most part, notwithstanding, if a knighthood is to be given for services to literature, it ought to be in regard to English literature.

Some people really need to learn what the word "fiction" means. Too bad they weren't taught. :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't give a shit about Rushdie being knighted, though I find it amusing and support it if it means pissing off a bunch of anal people who don't understand what "fiction" is.

Whic, really, should be grounds enough for a knighthood...:D

yeah whatever one of them is worth nowadays?

Great, now Iran has got something else to rant about, after the Mohammed cartoons.. :rolleyes:

When the people in muslim countries protest against something like this, burning flags and embassies, Mubarak, Musharraf and co don't care. When their people want more rights they do..

Once more, we return to the problem of the knighthood. The fact I don't give a flying fuck about non-anglophone literature for the most part, notwithstanding, if a knighthood is to be given for services to literature, it ought to be in regard to English literature.

I think you misunderstand. I was pointing out that the particular bits of English literature written by Salman Rushdie are internationally recognised and highly regarded.

Anyways...methinks this will add to the accusations of "west provoking muslims" theory doing the rounds in teh interwebs....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/16/queens.honors.ap/index.html


Personally, if you're the kind of person that supports killing people for their views, you deserve to be offended.

Christianity had the same problem at right around the same age. Maybe it has something to do with monotheism.

American christians seem to take "The origin of species" by Charles Darwin pretty hard, even today.

I wonder if we could make up to all the Islamic countries by knighting a suicide bomber? :D

Regarding Rushdie's literature, I had to read Midnights Children for english. I would have liked it except the notes we had to take were crippling. If we had done more than one of his works then I really would sympathise with all those who want him dead... but that is more the fault of my english teacher :sniper:

I think that his works have more appreciation among those who understand about literature and how amazing it is. To the simple man on the street his books are a bit heavy.

I wonder if we could make up to all the Islamic countries by knighting a suicide bomber? :D

Regarding Rushdie's literature, I had to read Midnights Children for english. I would have liked it except the notes we had to take were crippling. If we had done more than one of his works then I really would sympathise with all those who want him dead... but that is more the fault of my english teacher :sniper:

I think that his works have more appreciation among those who understand about literature and how amazing it is. To the simple man on the street his books are a bit heavy.

There is a certian sort of snobery in litrature that has been going on for a bloody long time.

Highbrow, lowbrow, I don't care as long as its a good read.

There is a certian sort of snobery in litrature that has been going on for a bloody long time.

Highbrow, lowbrow, I don't care as long as its a good read.

I wouldn't call it snobbery... it's an acquired ability to appreciate, I think. I noticed that I'm becoming more and more discriminating the more books I read. Books that I considered to be profound 10 years ago will sometimes now strike me as blatantly obvious and stereotype, whereas books I would most likely have pushed aside as confused drivel now fascinate me. It's a learning process, simple as that.

I wouldn't call it snobbery... it's an acquired ability to appreciate, I think. I noticed that I'm becoming more and more discriminating the more books I read. Books that I considered to be profound 10 years ago will sometimes now strike me as blatantly obvious and stereotype, whereas books I would most likely have pushed aside as confused drivel now fascinate me. It's a learning process, simple as that.

There may be some of what you suggest, but I have witnessed such things that can only be called snobery.

I was at work, and walking through the open plan office to get to my office a few days back, and the head of the casting desk stopped me to ask what book I had in my hand. When I flipped it over to show her the cover of Stephen Kings - Dreamcatcher, she said 'Ohh Stephen King' and actualy turned her nose up at me.

Snobbery comes into play when you feel superior for not reading what others do, or for taking the stance that the book has no merit, if not cerebral enough for your tastes.

Although I do agree that the more you learn on any subject the more bored you become with it's basics.

There may be some of what you suggest, but I have witnessed such things that can only be called snobery.

I was at work, and walking through the open plan office to get to my office a few days back, and the head of the casting desk stopped me to ask what book I had in my hand. When I flipped it over to show her the cover of Stephen Kings - Dreamcatcher, she said 'Ohh Stephen King' and actualy turned her nose up at me.

Snobbery comes into play when you feel superior for not reading what others do, or for taking the stance that the book has no merit, if not cerebral enough for your tastes.

Although I do agree that the more you learn on any subject the more bored you become with it's basics.


Well, truth be told, Stephen King would only have gotten a pretty lame "Ah, ok" from me as well. And I am aware that that might be perceived as snobbery. It's just that I'm always curious what other people are reading, as I might stumble across a great book recommendation that way. And it's so disappointing for me then to find out that what they're reading is Stephen King or Dan Brown or Marian Keyes or the like... Not that I'm saying all these are the same, they're just all equally uninteresting to me. :(

Well, truth be told, Stephen King would only have gotten a pretty lame "Ah, ok" from me as well. And I am aware that that might be perceived as snobbery. It's just that I'm always curious what other people are reading, as I might stumble across a great book recommendation that way. And it's so disappointing for me then to find out that what they're reading is Stephen King or Dan Brown or Marian Keyes or the like... Not that I'm saying all these are the same, they're just all equally uninteresting to me. :(

Heh I understand what you mean. I am no great fan of SK, but he can spin a good yarn. Equaly I just can't read Kafka, ohh my God the man makes me want to cut my wrists!

Heh I understand what you mean. I am no great fan of SK, but he can spin a good yarn. Equaly I just can't read Kafka, ohh my God the man makes me want to cut my wrists!

It may well be a matter of taste there, cause I'm simply awed by Kafka. I love his stories, I love the simple and percise way in which he draws the surreal plots, the uneasy feeling that everything might turn out true after all... a bit like an advanced Edgar Allen Poe.

Me, on the other hand, I never liked Hermann Hesse. Seriously, what's so great about somebody who simply packing Freud's theories in feeble, lengthy and pointless novels?

It may well be a matter of taste there, cause I'm simply awed by Kafka. I love his stories, I love the simple and percise way in which he draws the surreal plots, the uneasy feeling that everything might turn out true after all... a bit like an advanced Edgar Allen Poe.

Me, on the other hand, I never liked Hermann Hesse. Seriously, what's so great about somebody who simply packing Freud's theories in feeble, lengthy and pointless novels?

Really? Wow I'm almost shocked! I guess then it goes beyond mere taste. I love Herman Hesse. I'm a great beliver in mindsets, I think perhaps that your mind is sorta built one way, and that my mind maybe built along differant lines.

It makes sense of such vering belifes, you know the religious, then non religous, the socalist, the conservative, the bigoted, the liberal.

EAP. love him 'The Raven' more scary than Fredy Cruger, Mary Shelly's Frankenstien, litraly the scarest, most thought provokeing book I have ever read.

Kafka, ohh no, far too depresing, nope give me Joe R Landsale anyday, depressing yeah thats true, but boy what story teller, far better than Stephen King, in fact he makes me green with envy.

Peter Carey, ohh my gosh, serilism a its absolute best.

I think that his works have more appreciation among those who understand about literature and how amazing it is. To the simple man on the street his books are a bit heavy.
Even to the literati his books are a bit heavy. Midnight's Children is about one pound, and that's the paperback version.
I never read The Satanic Verses. What exactly does Rushdie say that has brought on this onslaught?

Even to the literati his books are a bit heavy. Midnight's Children is about one pound, and that's the paperback version.
I never read The Satanic Verses. What exactly does Rushdie say that has brought on this onslaught?

I read it, and I honestly don't know.
Funnily enough, none of the offended Muslims ever said what had offended them in any interview I read so far...

Really? Wow I'm almost shocked! I guess then it goes beyond mere taste. I love Herman Hesse. I'm a great beliver in mindsets, I think perhaps that your mind is sorta built one way, and that my mind maybe built along differant lines.

It makes sense of such vering belifes, you know the religious, then non religous, the socalist, the conservative, the bigoted, the liberal.

EAP. love him 'The Raven' more scary than Fredy Cruger, Mary Shelly's Frankenstien, litraly the scarest, most thought provokeing book I have ever read.

Kafka, ohh no, far too depresing, nope give me Joe R Landsale anyday, depressing yeah thats true, but boy what story teller, far better than Stephen King, in fact he makes me green with envy.

Peter Carey, ohh my gosh, serilism a its absolute best.

Well, I always found Frankenstein a bit lengthy and too moralistic. I love the original Dracula, though. It still is the best vampire novel ever written. :D

I read it, and I honestly don't know.
Funnily enough, none of the offended Muslims ever said what had offended them in any interview I read so far...
Fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians have at least that in common; they will be offended by whatever their organisation tells them to be offended by without ever examining the thing for themselves.

I am all for free speech etc.

But I am just wondering whether in fact he would have got the knighthood had the fatwa not been issued...

Its not really hard to see that rewarding a Muslim dissident for being a dissident would piss off Muslim countries.

For e.g. the awards given to the Cambridge spies by the USSR in 1960's was a slap in face to the UK.
Or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg being honoured as Hero of the USSR was a slap to the United States.

However, I don't agree that it should go any further than an official dissenting statement. The regimes that comment on these issues give credence to the whole claim of why someone actually is a dissident.

It seems folks in the Pak govt have nothing better to do..

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/06/22/story_22-6-2007_pg1_7
‘I’d kill blasphemer’

LAHORE: Punjab Assembly speaker Chaudhry Afzal Sahi Thursday declared that according to Islam a blasphemer should be killed and if any blasphemer would come in front of him he would definitely kill him. He said the issue of awarding the title of ‘Sir’ to blasphemer Salman Rushdie was a religious issue. Being a Muslim, he said, he was not ready to compromise on the issue. “I am not a religious scholar, but I want to make it clear that a blasphemer was liable to kill,” the speaker said. “First, I am a Muslim and later the Punjab Assembly speaker.” staff report

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/06/22/story_22-6-2007_pg7_5
Blair hates Muslims, says Shujaat

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said on Thursday one should not be surprised by the British government’s decision to award a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie, APP reported.

“(British prime minister) Tony Blair is personally against the Muslims,:p” Hussain told the National Assembly while speaking on a point of order.

The PML president castigated Rushdie in the strongest possible words. “He is a mad man. He is a thief and he is a scoundrel,” :eek:he said. He suggested the author should only be called Rushdie as Salman is a holy name and it is not appropriate to bracket it with Rushdie.

Earlier, the MMA’s Farid Ahmed Paracha said the house should once again pass a resolution urging the British government to strip Rushdie of his knighthood. He said the British government, despite the strong Muslim protests across the world, had not apologised and what it only said was “it felt sorry because the sentiments of Muslims have been hurt”. “To award Rushdie is an insult to Muslims.”

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sher Afgan Niazi said the house had passed a unanimous resolution in this context. “The government has strongly protested and told the British high commissioner that Pakistanis have been deeply hurt by their action,” Afgan said.

The minister said Rushdie had made no contribution to literature and in fact, the British government had negated its own traditions by knighting him. “In Britain only those are knighted who have won a Nobel Prize.” :confused:He, however, said he would not favour a second resolution in the house.

Dr Attaur Rehman of the MMA said Pakistan should withdraw as a frontline state in the “war on terrorism,” because it also includes Britain and the US.

Staff report adds: Former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain came under fire when Dr Farid Paracha, without naming these leaders, regretted their silence :rolleyes:over the issue.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/06/22/story_22-6-2007_pg1_6
Reward for killing

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani traders on Thursday announced a reward of Rs 10 million for anyone who beheads Salman Rushdie, following Britain’s decision to award the novelist a knighthood. The announcement came during a protest by 200 traders at Aabpara market, Islamabad, an AFP photographer said. “We will give Rs 10 million to anyone who beheads Rushdie,” the secretary general of the Islamabad traders association, Ajmal Baluch, told the cheering crowd. He also called on Islamic countries to boycott British products in protest at the honour to Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses. afp


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/06/22/story_22-6-2007_pg7_44
Anti-Salman Rushdie protests: Sindh CM to surrender ancestors’ British medals

By Razzak Abro

KARACHI: Sindh Chief Minister Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim announced Thursday that he would surrender the titles and medals given to his ancestors by the British rulers to protest the knighting of writer Salman Rushdie.

Speaking at a hurriedly called press conference at Chief Minister House, he said that the British rulers had awarded medals and titles to his family members. King George VI had given a medal to his grandfather, Arbab Mir Muhammad, on May 12, 1937, and his uncle Arbab Togachi was awarded a medal and the title of ‘Khan Saheb’ on January 1, 1945.

Rahim held up the medal and a certificate given to his ancestors and declared that he would return them to the British High Commission in Karachi, as he did not have enough money to go to England. :DHe said that he had taken the decision according to his conscience.

The chief minister appealed to other leaders, including the self-exiled Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairperson Benazir Bhutto, to return the titles and medals the British rulers awarded their elders. He said that the British rulers had awarded Benazir’s grandfather, Shahnawaz Bhutto, the title of “Sir”. Similarly, the first chief minister of the Sindh, Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah, another chief minister (and father of the provincial minister Dr Hamida Khuhro) Khanbahadur Ayub Khuhro and others had been awarded different titles.

Rahim said that different personalities in Sindh, including Allah Bux Soomro, had already surrendered their titles during the British rule after the Muslims had launched a movement against the Raj. He said that then chief minister Allah Bux Soomro had returned his title ‘Khanbahadur’ which was why he was removed from office.

and one nice response from a Andrew Marr.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/06/20/do2002.xml
If Pakistan is so angry, give back our aid

By Andrew Marr
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 20/06/2007

Pakistanis have every right to voice their anger at the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie.

Equally, the rest of us have every right to express our anger at the deeply offensive response of Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, Pakistan's religious affairs minister who invoked the world's 1.5 billion Muslims and said: "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammed, his act is justified."

He later "clarified" his words, but we all know exactly what he was up to. And what of the Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who responds by saying Rushdie has "blood on his hands".

Some people like Rushdie's novels, others don't. Some say he's smug, others say he's delightful.

Yes, he has cost this country a lot in protecting him and through him, a core value of freedom of speech. But unless there is a strange and violent back-story we didn't know, Sir Salman hasn't the smallest drop of blood on his hands.

If Pakistan is so offended, however, there is a dignified way to deal with the problem.

Last year, Tony Blair went to Lahore to praise its "enlightened moderation" and to announce a rise in our aid budget to Pakistan from £236 million to £480 million. If this is tainted money, it can presumably be returned.

Bin Laden gets Pakistan honour...

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/22/1958648.htm?section=justin
Bin Laden gets Pakistan honour

By South Asia correspondent Peter Lloyd

Posted June 22, 2007 06:07:00
Updated June 22, 2007 06:17:00
Honoured by clerics: Osama bin Laden

Honoured by clerics: Osama bin Laden (Reuters)


Religious scholars in Pakistan have awarded their highest honour to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in reaction to Britain's knighthood for Salman Rushdie.

The tit-for-tat recognition was given by a private body that claims to represent 2,000 religious scholars in Pakistan.

It said it was bestowing the title 'Sword of Allah' on bin Laden, in response to Britain giving a knighthood to the author of The Satanic Verses.

Meanwhile, Britain has expressed "deep concern" at remarks by the Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister who said the award given to Rushdie justified suicide attacks.

Bin Laden gets Pakistan honour...

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/22/1958648.htm?section=justin

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

Way to react!
So, because Britain associates itself with someone some people call a blasphemer, Pakistan associates itself with an alleged terrorist and mass-murderer? I wonder how much more childish they can get...

Way to react!
So, because Britain associates itself with someone some people call a blasphemer, Pakistan associates itself with an alleged terrorist and mass-murderer? I wonder how much more childish they can get...

If by Pakistan you mean just a group of Pakistani clerics, then yes.

I have this feeling that this is going to get worse when more idiots join the "I am more islamic than you" competition.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/22rush.htm
J&K: Strike over Rushdie knighthood

Mukhtar Ahmad in Srinagar | June 22, 2007 | 12:47 IST

A partial strike to protest the British knighthood to Indian born writer Salman Rushdie affected normal life in Srinagar on Friday.

The strike, called by the Jamiat-ul-Mujaheedin outfit and supported by separatist leaders, saw the shutting down of shops and other business establishments in the Civil Lines area of Srinagar, while it evoked partial response in downtown city and other major towns of the Valley.

Traffic was plying normally in Srinagar where security was beefed up.

Friday's strike has been called against the decision of the British government to award knighthood on Salman Rushdie.

It must be mentioned that Salman Rushdie was accused of blasphemy against the Prophet of Islam in 1988 when he published his book The Satanic Verses.

A death fatwa was announced against Rushdie by the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989.

Kashmir's grand mufti, Mufti Bashir-ud-Din asked local bookshops to withdraw all the author's books from their shops.

Snip
It's almost enough to make we want to blaspheme in an act of solidarity.

Bin Laden gets Pakistan honour...

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/22/1958648.htm?section=justin
You mean, Bin Laden gets an honour by Pakistani clerics? Whatever you think about the Pakistani government, I don't think they're quite stupid enough to do that...

The strike, called by the Jamiat-ul-Mujaheedin outfit and supported by separatist leaders, saw the shutting down of shops and other business establishments in the Civil Lines area of Srinagar
I think this shows just how much this is being exploited by separatists and Islamists - I've a feeling that this is being used as an internal political tool against Islamabad as well.

If by Pakistan you mean just a group of Pakistani clerics, then yes.

Sorry, I normally try not to be so imprecise...

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

Way to react!
So, because Britain associates itself with someone some people call a blasphemer, Pakistan associates itself with an alleged terrorist and mass-murderer? I wonder how much more childish they can get...


Heh not that I'm defending Bin laden, but if you use language such as you have just then, '...some people call blashpemer', then is only seems fair to do the same for the chap at the other end. Why not say '.... some people call an alleged terrorist and mass murderer'

Just asking.

Sorry, I normally try not to be so imprecise...

It's okay, you didn't mean it. You just have to be mindful not to tar whole nations with the same brush. We are all guilty of it at some point. :(

Heh not that I'm defending Bin laden, but if you use language such as you have just then, '...some people call blashpemer', then is only seems fair to do the same for the chap at the other end. Why not say '.... some people call an alleged terrorist and mass murderer'

Just asking.

Cause "alleged" already implies that :p ;)

You mean, Bin Laden gets an honour by Pakistani clerics? Whatever you think about the Pakistani government, I don't think they're quite stupid enough to do that...


I just copy pasted the headline on the link...:p

Some people really need to learn what the word "fiction" means. Too bad they weren't taught. :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't give a shit about Rushdie being knighted, though I find it amusing and support it if it means pissing off a bunch of anal people who don't understand what "fiction" is.

These are people who follow the koran. Of course they know what fiction is, they just happen to believe it to be the truth.

Oh, and before anyone bashes me for being anti-islam, the same statement applies to those who believe the bible (or any other mythological text) to be the truth.

Really, it seem that a lot of muslims need to remove the Mohammed-shaped bug out ot their asses, and realize that there are other beliefs in the world and theirs is hardly universal. Their beliefs simply do not apply to everyone. Nor should it.

Bin Laden gets Pakistan honour...

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/22/1958648.htm?section=justin

Sounds remarkably like Iran's commissioning of the Holocaust Denial cartoons in protest at the publication of cartoons of Mohammed. Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away.

These are people who follow the koran. Of course they know what fiction is, they just happen to believe it to be the truth.

Oh, and before anyone bashes me for being anti-islam, the same statement applies to those who believe the bible (or any other mythological text) to be the truth.

Really, it seem that a lot of muslims need to remove the Mohammed-shaped bug out ot their asses, and realize that there are other beliefs in the world and theirs is hardly universal. Their beliefs simply do not apply to everyone. Nor should it.

I think he was referring to Rushdie's novel, not the Koran...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/22/wrushdie322.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/06/22/npark.jpg

Muslim peer compares Rushdie to 9/ll bombers

By Duncan Gardham
Last Updated: 6:25pm BST 22/06/2007

A Muslim peer compared Salman Rushdie to the September 11 hijackers today as the row over the author's knighthood escalated.

At Regents Park Mosque in London, protestors held up placards saying "May God curse the Queen" and one speaker told followers Tony Blair should be sent back from the Middle East "in a bag".

And in Iran, a senior cleric told worshippers at Friday prayers that the fatwa against Mr Rushdie was still valid.

Interviewed in Le Figaro newspaper in France, the Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham added fuel to the row when he hit out at Mr Rushdie.

"This honour is given in recognition of services rendered to Great Britain," he said. "Salman Rushdie lives in New York. He is controversial man who has insulted Muslim people, Christians and the British. He does not deserve the honour.

"Two weeks ago Tony Blair spoke about constructing bridges with Muslims. What hypocrisy.

"What would one say if the Saudi or Afghan governments honoured the martyrs of the September 11 attacks on the United States?":rolleyes:

His words follow that of the Pakistani religious affairs minister Ijaz ul-Haq who said the move to honour Mr Rushdie justified suicide bombings.

The protest at Regents Park was organised by Anjem Choudary, a former leader of al-Muhajiroun who also organised the protests against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which led to several convictions.

At the rally, two dozen protestors burned a paper St George's flag and called for the Queen to "go to hell."

One speaker referred to Tony Blair's possible role as a Middle East envoy, adding: "I hope Tony Blair comes back in a bag. What bag is up to you."

Placards held by the protestors read: "Insults towards the Prophet = praises from the Queen" and "Hatred uttered from the tongue but what is in their hearts is far worse."

Leaflets handed out to people leaving the mosque after Friday prayers said: "The British Government's decision to honour Salman Rushdie is a public demonstration of their hatred and contempt towards Islam."

Protestors attacked photographers and one shouted: "Salman Rushdie is a devil. He should be attacked. We as Muslims should never forget how he insulted the Prophet.

"We have a responsibility to hold the Queen accountable for standing with the people who insult Islam."

In a letter to more than 500 mosques, the Muslim Council of Britain accused Tony Blair personally of rewarding an author who had "vilified" Islam.

"Muslims can only see this action as an attempt to create deep offence to Muslims and divert their attention from contributing to community cohesion in these challenging times," said secretary-general Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari.

But he called for peaceful protest and added: "We should not allow the situation to be inflamed in any way or exploited by unsavoury groups."

In Iran a senior cleric said the 1989 fatwa, issued by Ayatollah Kohmeini calling for the killing of Mr Rushdie remained in place and could not be revoked.

As thousands of worshippers at Tehran University chanted, "Death to the English," Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, told them: "They have awarded him only because he insulted the Prophet. In such a situation, awarding him means confronting 1.5 billion Muslims around the world.

"Britons should know that they are the losers in this matter, 100 percent."

The protest, coming after many bigger demonstrations across the Muslim world, raises new concerns for Mr Rushdie's safety almost 20 years after the publication of his book The Satanic Verses, which many Muslims claim is blasphemous.

The Indian-born novelist was forced to go into hiding after the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa threat against him. Only in 1998 did Teheran withdraw its support for the death sentence.

About 2,000 people joined rallies in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, and Quetta. In Karachi the crowd chanted "Death to Rushdie" and carried banners including one reading, "Awarding Rushdie is starting a fight with Islam."

In Multan in Pakistan members of the local paramedics association torched effigies of Mr Rushdie and the Queen. A group of traders offered a reward of 10 million rupees for anyone who beheads Rushdie and in Kashmir a rebel group shut down shops, businesses and schools to protest against the award.

Pakistan's national assembly unanimously passed a second resolution calling on the British government to revoke the knighthood and "apologise to the Islamic world".

One MP called for Mr Rushdie to be murdered, adding: "Whosoever kills him will be the hero of Muslims."

Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship. said: "In terms of censorship we are extremely unhappy at this level of intimidation that surfaces every time there is dissent, criticism or comment on Islam.

"It's very much a knee-jerk response that whenever Islam appears to be slighted in any way you can be sure that there is going to be political leaders who are going to shout to gain political advantage."

No, I don't agree with his knighthood, but only because I don't agree with the monarchy & peerage system. Otherwise, I couldn't give at shit either way about his book.

The Brits are just trolling.

<snip>The genuine concern of an oppressed minority that's constantly disrespected and ridiculed. Please understand them, and don't judge. We should be respectful of their needs and unique situation, not continue our century-long destructive attempts to destroy them.

In other news, President Bush has stepped on an ant, killing it. America is killing ants! To the barricades! These murderers must be stopped!

Further evidence of England's moral bankruptcy. If slandering the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) is to be rewarded, then what other travesty will come next?

The genuine concern of an oppressed minority that's constantly disrespected and ridiculed. Please understand them, and don't judge. We should be respectful of their needs and unique situation, not continue our century-long destructive attempts to destroy them.

You lost me. Which post of mine are you referring to, who is we, who is them..:confused:

Further evidence of England's moral bankruptcy. If slandering the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) is to be rewarded, then what other travesty will come next?Gameshows.

On another note, one dares mentioning that slandering Mohammed (And rewarding the process of doing so) has been a fine European tradition since about 700 A.D.

You have to admit... 1300 years of moral bankruptcy and still going strong... Quite a feat.

Further evidence of England's moral bankruptcy. If slandering the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) is to be rewarded, then what other travesty will come next?

First of all, I hope you're joking.
But just in case you're serious : Rushdie's literary work is being recognised by this reward, not one single book, and most certainly not just one single aspect of that particular book.

Gameshows.

On another note, one dares mentioning that slandering Mohammed (And rewarding the process of doing so) has been a fine European tradition since about 700 A.D.

You have to admit... 1300 years of moral bankruptcy and still going strong... Quite a feat.

It is entirely possible to live in sin and moral squalor for eternity, which is the fate that awaits Europe lest it changes its vile attitude and accepts Allah as the one true god.

You lost me. Which post of mine are you referring to, who is we, who is them..:confused:No problem. I was just terribly sarcastic.

It is entirely possible to live in sin and moral squalor for eternity, which is the fate that awaits Europe lest it changes its vile attitude and accepts Allah as the one true god.Mhm...

Nah, I like my sin.

Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin

It is entirely possible to live in sin and moral squalor for eternity, which is the fate that awaits Europe lest it changes its vile attitude and accepts Allah as the one true god.

:rolleyes:

It is entirely possible to live in sin and moral squalor for eternity, which is the fate that awaits Europe lest it changes its vile attitude and accepts Allah as the one true god.
Funny.

I thought Europe was being 'Islamified' by a wave of immigrants...

:rolleyes:

Don't roll your eyes at me, young man. I'm a total stranger, and therefore might not have the decency to roll them back to you. Then what would you be? BLIND, that's what.

.............

I just don't know where to go from this point

..............This is understandable. 'tis not like you can see where you're ging when blind :D

Funny.

I thought Europe was being 'Islamified' by a wave of immigrants...

That's a rather simplistic description, but I see this as a positive thing, for at least a strong muslim presence in their unholy democracies will ensure that innocent muslims will not be persecuted unjustly.

I just don't know where to go from this point
Fire your Ignore Cannon?

Don't roll your eyes at me, young man. I'm a total stranger, and therefore might not have the decency to roll them back to you. Then what would you be? BLIND, that's what.

.............

I just don't know where to go from this point

..............

This is understandable. 'tis not like you can see where you're ging when blind :D

Just wait until I develop my Daredevil like skills :p

Fire your Ignore Cannon?

How cruel. You haven't even gotten to know me.

That's a rather simplistic description, but I see this as a positive thing, for at least a strong muslim presence in their unholy democracies will ensure that innocent muslims will not be persecuted unjustly.

Yeah the innocent Christians, Atheists, etc get that joy instead

That's a rather simplistic description, but I see this as a positive thing, for at least a strong muslim presence in their unholy democracies will ensure that innocent muslims will not be persecuted unjustly.
Naw, I was just detailing the trolling Yin to your trolling Yang.

No matter what direction folk approach it from, trolling these days all boils down to teh Muslumz or teh gayz.

Or, teh gay Muslumz.

Naw, I was just detailing the trolling Yin to your trolling Yang.

No matter what direction folk approach it from, trolling these days all boils down to teh Muslumz or teh gayz.

Or, teh gay Muslumz.

I notice you consistently spell 'Muslims' with no 'i' in your post. Are you implying that Muslims live in slums? Or, perhaps, by adding a trailing 'z', that they are universally lazy?

How cruel. You haven't even gotten to know me.

First impressions are important *nods*

What infidel magic is this forum, where time folds back upon itself, and my posts travel back into the past?

First impressions are important *nods*

But that's just extreme. I never Ignore on the first date.

What infidel magic is this forum, where time folds back upon itself, and my posts travel back into the past?

*lol

You're funny. And I think it's up for guesses whose puppet you are :D

*lol

You're funny. And I think it's up for guesses whose puppet you are :D

*Looks suspiciously at Cabra*

I trust no-one :p

I think he was referring to Rushdie's novel, not the Koran...

Kinda my point: If Someone takes one peice of fiction seriously, they'll take another.

Further evidence of England's moral bankruptcy. If slandering the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) is to be rewarded, then what other travesty will come next?

Now this rteally does make me laugh. If freedom of speach is moral bankruptcy then let me remain moraly bankrupt.

How is it slanderous though to give Salman Rushdie a knighthood. There is no mention of the prophet Mohamed in this?

Which brings me to another point, that of insult. You do realise that the whole power of insult lies in the insulted, not the insulter. So if you feel insylted by other peoples words, that is 100% your responsibilty. Choose instead not to be insulted.

Now this rteally does make me laugh. If freedom of speach is moral bankruptcy then let me remain moraly bankrupt.

How is it slanderous though to give Salman Rushdie a knighthood. There is no mention of the prophet Mohamed in this?

Which brings me to another point, that of insult. You do realise that the whole power of insult lies in the insulted, not the insulter. So if you feel insylted by other peoples words, that is 100% your responsibilty. Choose instead not to be insulted.

Then you shall reside in a hell of your own making, with pain, torture, comfortable chairs, 72 sexually experienced partners, and an overabundance of double letters, since you appear to loathe them so. Lest you choose this fate rashly, might I raise the point that I do not believe this controversy to relate to the freedom of speech concept at all.

Salman Rushdie slandered Allah and His prophet, and is to be rewarded for it by the English monarchy.

Indeed, by this logic, I might be verbally attacked with the most vile and racist of epithets, yet the insulting party would share no percentage of blame; rather, it is to be shouldered entirely by the victim should he, or she (or other, uncommon pronoun with nontraditional gender assignment), raise voice in protest. How repulsive a philosophy, if I interpret it correctly.

Indeed, by this logic, I might be verbally attacked with the most vile and racist of epithets, yet the insulting party would share no percentage of blame; rather, it is to be shouldered entirely by the victim should he, or she (or other, uncommon pronoun with nontraditional gender assignment), raise voice in protest. How repulsive a philosophy, if I interpret it correctly.

You do interpret it correctly.

You're an ass!

Shoulder it.

Then you shall reside in a hell of your own making, with pain, torture, comfortable chairs, 72 sexually experienced partners, and an overabundance of double letters, since you appear to loathe them so. Lest you choose this fate rashly, might I raise the point that I do not believe this controversy to relate to the freedom of speech concept at all.

You know, I never saw the appeal of 72 squeamish, clumsy, inexperienced virgins. Give me 72 whores any day :D

You do interpret it correctly.

You're an ass!

Shoulder it.

I declare Jihad on you, every band you enjoy, and this infernal overheating laptop, which was assembled in Florida, haven of aged infidels and palm trees.

I declare Jihad on you, every band you enjoy, and this infernal overheating laptop, which was assembled in Florida, haven of aged infidels and palm trees.

Yay! That's the second Jihad of the day, 3 more and I've got the complete set.

Then you shall reside in a hell of your own making, with pain, torture, comfortable chairs, 72 sexually experienced partners, and an overabundance of double letters, since you appear to loathe them so. Lest you choose this fate rashly, might I raise the point that I do not believe this controversy to relate to the freedom of speech concept at all.

Salman Rushdie slandered Allah and His prophet, and is to be rewarded for it by the English monarchy.

Indeed, by this logic, I might be verbally attacked with the most vile and racist of epithets, yet the insulting party would share no percentage of blame; rather, it is to be shouldered entirely by the victim should he, or she (or other, uncommon pronoun with nontraditional gender assignment), raise voice in protest. How repulsive a philosophy, if I interpret it correctly.


Heheh comfy chairs, I am quite happy with the sexual experiance of my wife, and I doubt she would be happy to share me with 76 others. Yeah as you can see I have some trouble with my speiling, but like insult, I choose not to let it bother me.

The British Monachy is not rewarding Salman for slander against the prohet Mohamed, nor any percived insult to Islam, or Muslims, and to say otherwise is so foolsish it is as near to unthinking claptrap as you can get.

It is very easy to understand. Most people would like to live as they would like to. Then it is being somewhat elitist to not confer this idea or principle to others, this includes saying what you want to say.

All insult includeing the most vilest and racist such as you speak about only has power if the person being insulted is effected by it. You say this attitude is repulsive, how easy your life would be though if instead of letting words effect your moods and emotions, you could ignore it and not give these people that sort of power over you. Allowing others this sort of power over you IS truely repulsive.

The British Monachy is not rewarding Salman for slander against the prohet Mohamed, nor any percived insult to Islam, or Muslims, and to say otherwise is so foolsish it is as near to unthinking claptrap as you can get.

It is very easy to understand. Most people would like to live as they would like to. Then it is being somewhat elitist to not confer this idea or principle to others, this includes saying what you want to say.

All insult includeing the most vilest and racist such as you speak about only has power if the person being insulted is effected by it. You say this attitude is repulsive, how easy your life would be though if instead of letting words effect your moods and emotions, you could ignore it and not give these people that sort of power over you. Allowing others this sort of power over you IS truely repulsive.

I disagree.

This has nothing to do with moods and emotions. If an ethnic or religious minority was insulted publicly by one man, the public reaction determines determines how much power that minority truly has in society. If the man is not shunned by his peers, nay, even praised, I would not consider the society a very hospitable place for said minority, would you?

I disagree.

This has nothing to do with moods and emotions. If an ethnic or religious minority was insulted publicly by one man, the public reaction determines determines how much power that minority truly has in society. If the man is not shunned by his peers, nay, even praised, I would not consider the society a very hospitable place for said minority, would you?

I take your point, indeed we have the sort of laws that both garentee your freedom of speach and protect against the type of speach designed to stir up hatred and, intolerance and tensions.

Yet I am talking about a personal responsibilty here. If I was to subject you to the most vilest and sickening verbal abuse, and you were in your turn to ignore it and not let it bother you, then who would come out the loser?

Ultimatly you have responsibily over your life, you get to choose what effect my words will have upon you. If you choose the course of anger and insult, that is still your choice. Ohh yes I understand provercation, I understand loss of emotional control, and yes dispite my early words, I get the fact that the insulter must shoulder some responsibilty, but only because he is also ultimatly responsible for the course of his life.

As to society, it is made up of indivduals, all of which think, feel and act differantly from each other over many issues. So at all times some members will always feel hard done by.

Heh aaahhhh democracy in action.

It's weird, because Sadisco's clearly a puppet, but at the same time, he's, like, not a puppet. Or something.

It's weird, because Sadisco's clearly a puppet, but at the same time, he's, like, not a puppet. Or something.

Yeah I know wot ya mean. Still it's enjoyable, so I'm just going with tha flow!

I take your point, indeed we have the sort of laws that both garentee your freedom of speach and protect against the type of speach designed to stir up hatred and, intolerance and tensions.

Yet I am talking about a personal responsibilty here. If I was to subject you to the most vilest and sickening verbal abuse, and you were in your turn to ignore it and not let it bother you, then who would come out the loser?

Ultimatly you have responsibily over your life, you get to choose what effect my words will have upon you. If you choose the course of anger and insult, that is still your choice. Ohh yes I understand provercation, I understand loss of emotional control, and yes dispite my early words, I get the fact that the insulter must shoulder some responsibilty, but only because he is also ultimatly responsible for the course of his life.

As to society, it is made up of indivduals, all of which think, feel and act differantly from each other over many issues. So at all times some members will always feel hard done by.

Heh aaahhhh democracy in action.

I understand, and to some degree agree with you. But in any event, in this case, I believe the issue to be societal, and the knighthood to be a poor message to society.

It's weird, because Sadisco's clearly a puppet, but at the same time, he's, like, not a puppet. Or something.

Who are you calling a puppet? Oh shit, forgot. You have no power over me. My cheek is turned.

...

Aw, fuck it. I demand satisfaction! Fisticuffs, on the nonce.

I understand, and to some degree agree with you. But in any event, in this case, I believe the issue to be societal, and the knighthood to be a poor message to society.

I don't know about that, I think largley and increasingly the British public take little notice of such things as knighthoods, Indeed my first few post on this thread where more concerned with what is the point of a knighthood.

Which is reflective of my view of the monachy in general. I'm not against the royal family as such, I just don't really see what the point of them is. What actual benifits does one get from being a knight, are there actulaty any duties to such a thing anymore?

I think the whole thing is much of a nothing. There is not enough meaning nor substance for me to feel much of anything about it.

If I was to sum it all up in a word that word would more than likely be blargh(which is to say meh)



Ohh and for the record, I have nowt against Islam, nor any religion. I am myself a Sikh, and when I see fellow Sikhs complaining about irrelevant things, such as the Bollywood actress who had the Ikonkar symbol tattoed on the small of her back(what a rumpus that caused) I tell them much the same as I have told you. you are making abig deal over what is essentialy a nothing.