"Sir" Salman Rushdie and the Knighthood

Right to Offend as a human right

from JoeUser Forums
The Islamic world is once again in turmoil. After the Danish Cartoons, the offensive and illiterate rantings of the pope, after the genocide unfolding in Iraq and the state of political unease in the Palestenian territories, yet another wound has been hurled against the Islamic world. The argument that who speaks for Islam does not hold water for the sime reason that from Turkey to Indonesia civil society groups have started agitaing against Salman Rushdie. Even USA,an allay in the so called war on "TERROR", Pakistan has passed a resolution asking the UK governemnt to withdraw the award. It appears thst Asian writers or Black writers who consciously and deliberately offend their own religions and socities are singled out for recognition. Will the UK honor anyone who is critical of their society? The symbols of western societies are protected by law and anuone crossing the red line is severely punished. Think of the Irving case and you will know what I am saying. When the Iranian Government announced a cartoon contest for denigrating the Holocaust all were aghast. Yet now a different set of standards is being applied for Salaman Rushdie.

The right to offend is not a human right. And by the same token the right to feel hurt and express outrage by assault is not a human right. I think the UK has created a highly dangerous situation by "honoring" Salamn Rushdie. In fact by honoring renegades like Rushdie, the UK is making it difficult, if not impossible for brave men and women who are working for change in the Islamic world. Indeed we can say that the West is only interested in perpetuating the myth of a barbaric Moslem world when it incites such outrage by honoring the very symbols of anti-Islam.

Now Rushdie is not a graat writer or novelist. His value to the White Establishmnet lies in the fact that he can be held out as a symbol of the intolerance and narrow mindedness of the Islamic world and in these days of White vs Islam clash men like Rushdie have their uses.

Salman Rushdie provoked outrage in the Islamic world over his Satanic Verses. This book alone led to the death of neraly 500 people all over the world. Iran responded by puttin a fatwa over his head. The British Government under Salman Rushdie's Mrs Torture spenst 15 million Pounds protecting him and all the Brits got for their trouble was contempt and a patronising comment.. "Sir" Salman Rushdie shifted base to New York where he is presently a local celebrity.

Given the gravity of the situation, the British Governmnt must withdraw its honor.
1,739 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I suppose free speech is not a right, Bahu. Because that is what you are arguing against. Free speech is only free speech if the right to offend is PART and parcel of it. What is freedom of speech when you only protect speech that AGREES with you?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Free speech is only free speech if the right to offend is PART and parcel of it. What is freedom of speech when you only protect speech that AGREES with you?


Then why is this freedom of speech denied to Islamic political forces. In other words Freedom of Speech is for the West to give offence and this is denied to the Oriental societies.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then why is this freedom of speech denied to Islamic political forces.


Blowing children up in shopping malls is NOT free speech, Bahu.

Putting a "hit" on someone is NOT free speech.

We're not rounding up terrorists because they call the US evil, we're rounding them up because they're KILLING people (note: I do NOT approve of this war, but I DO approve of dealing with actual terrorism).

Have we outlawed Islam? Not even close. Mosques in the United States prosper and thrive. Mosques in England and throughout Europe prosper and thrive. You paint us as bigots, Bahu, in the name of tolerance. Shame on you.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh come on Bahu! I refer you to my post of 18 June. Who gives a stuff about what Pakhistanis or Iranians think about Rushdie's knighthood? They would stir crap over a bad bar of chocolate. Let's get real here. The Queen, bless her, or Blair, have decided to knight Rushdie for his contribution to literature. Why would any Pakistani or Iranian agree over this? They can't because they are so embroiled in hatred over any system that is not within their liking. It is time that radical countries and their citizens, who bump their heads repeatedly on carpets, to realise that not everyone subscribes to narrow-minded views that go far beyond the norm. I have many Muslim friends but I draw the line when they pretend to honour Allah (PBUH) on Friday, and stab everyone in the back the next day.

If you wish to discuss religion, take me on. Muslim values of peace, family , abstinence and honour I can take. Hypocracy I can't.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
. Let's get real here. The Queen, bless her, or Blair, have decided to knight Rushdie for his contribution to literature. Why would any Pakistani or Iranian agree over this?


It is highly suspicious that "Sir" Salamn Rushdie, a prominent supporter of the Bush-Blair Duo invasion of Iraq should be honored by Tony Blaie even as he demits office to Brown later this month. It is downright hypocritical to suggest that Salman is being honored for his contribution to literature, when his last good work was Midnight's Children several decades in the past. Let us get real as you so elegantly put it: He is being honored because he succeds in stirring up Islamic feelings and the West can crow until kingdom come about its great tolerance and liberalism. Where was that tolerance in the Irving case?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Blowing children up in shopping malls is NOT free speech, Bahu.Putting a "hit" on someone is NOT free speech.


Let us not mix up issues here. Palestenians are engaged in a struggle with Israel and there are a lot of unpleasant things happening at both ends. In this case we are addressing a larger issue concerning the feelings of the Islamic World which has been singled out for sustained villification. Remember that Danish woman MP, The Danish Cartoons, the remerks of the Pope and the reference to the US troops being "crusaders".
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I suppose free speech is not a right, Bahu. Because that is what you are arguing against. Free speech is only free speech if the right to offend is PART and parcel of it. What is freedom of speech when you only protect speech that AGREES with you?


You seem to suggest that "Free Speech" exists anywhere. Your definition of Free Speech is the right to offend socities and cultures that are essentially not Western. Would that freedom extend to those who preach violence against certain groups, or advocate the overthrow of existing western hegemony. See the way in which a dissident group like the Branch Davidians were treated. If the Moselm world is villified then it is Freedom of Speech> If the same freedom is directed against the Western world it is hate mongering etc etc.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
See the way in which a dissident group like the Branch Davidians were treated.


I didn't support the way the Branch Davidians were treated, Bahu, nor did the vast majority of people that I have personally known. It was an outrage.

Please show me where Rushdie called for the murder of Muslims or their leaders? He criticized the Muslim faith, something one should be free to do.

There are multitudes of examples of equal affronts against Christianity, Bahu, yet there's not the same violence. Why?

Your very words, your very comments are as racist as any Klan propaganda could be. Why do I say that? Because you suggest that Muslims are incapable of responding to offensive literature, art, etc, in a nonviolent fashion and that the rest of the world must self censor to avoid offending Muslims. I believe most Muslims are more rational, and that, while they may not be fond of writers like Rushdie, they're not likely to lend support to a fatwah. If the majority of Muslims found him that offensive, he would be long dead by now.

I'm growing tired of your acting as an apologist for terrorists, Bahu. There's no excuse, no rationalization for terrorism, regardless of who initiates it. Yet your comments would cast the terrorists as freedom fighters and any who oppose them as fascists. Yours is a shallow analysis, to say the least, which is disappointing, because I know you're capable of more. I am pleased by your acknowledgment that the Palestinian situation includes a lot of unpleasant things at both ends, but such balance seems to be rare for you.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
believe most Muslims are more rational, and that, while they may not be fond of writers like Rushdie, they're not likely to lend support to a fatwah. If the majority of Muslims found him that offensive, he would be long dead by now.


I do believe in the freedom of Expression as I am a civil libertarian, however, I draw the line when it comes to deliberate provocation on religious lines.

I'm growing tired of your acting as an apologist for terrorists, Bahu. There's no excuse, no rationalization for terrorism, regardless of who initiates it. Yet your comments would cast the terrorists as freedom fighters and any who oppose them as fascists.


I am not a blinkered apologist for terrorism and I am opposwed to it. I did not support the fatwa against Rushdie, I am only opposing the Kinighthood.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Strange, I dont see Jihad's being declared over literature (and movies) that slam the Christian religion.  Are there people outraged?  Definitely.  And they boycott those films and books.  But I did not see any Jews calling for the head of Mel Gibson over the Passion of the Christ (boycotts, again yes).  Nor Catholics calling for the head of Daryl Duke for Thorn Birds, or Jane Fonda for Agnes of God.

Where is your outrage over those movies? How about the Da Vinci Code?

Your outrage is phony since it is so selective.