Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Salman Rushdie, as you might be familiar is the author of Satanic Verses

He has recently been granted knighthood by the Queen of England, which sparked the controversy, in Iran and Pakistan, mostly.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1948375.ece



Thoughts?

"...justifies suicide bombings" Not sure that fit's in with the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra. Let's face it, did they need "justification" in previous S-B's? This is just another excuse, guy wrote a ****ing book 20 years ago, nothing more.

Bumping this thread Lil B, silly how threads of some sustenance get overlooked...

P.S. Show me your butt-hole.

I saw this on the news the other day, but they were very brief about the details.

To be honest, I think the threats made are utterly ridiculous. I don't believe that all people of Islamic faith, are by any means offended by this knighthood. It could well be a carefully placed spin on the facts by extremist groups. It also seems to carefully coincide in its relation to the Alan Johnston situation.

Stupid thing for the Minister to say- another nail in the coffin of how the world views Islam.

I am faintly surprised that Knighthoods still carry such currency outside of the UK for anyone to care about it, actually. Which is kinda nice I suppose.

I've always thought it'd be great if we ran out of soldiers and celebrity knights had to fight in a war. Completely unfeasible of course, but it would be funny.

What qualifies people for Knighthood status? Though A. Hopkins is a great actor and E. John is a great musician, I fail to see what either of them did for crown and country. Don't Knights defend and uphold the law of the land?

To be honest, I'm that not queen and country myself; that I have no idea. I think it must just be doing a great service in some way, a lot of people get a knighthood for charity work.

I agree with Ush, its kinda nice that knighthood from UK is still looked upon as important to that extent.

Although I doubt its about the status, its more about spite and the fact that UK honored someone who criticized Islam.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I agree with Ush, its kinda nice that knighthood from UK is still looked upon as important to that extent.

Although I doubt its about the status, its more about spite and the fact that UK honored someone who criticized Islam.
Precisely, it's not the knighthood, it's just the fact that the UK are honouring someone for doing something that they didn't agree with.

No point in saying anything. You know the score.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Although I doubt its about the status, its more about spite and the fact that UK honored someone who criticized Islam.

Rushdie has lived with a deathmark on his head for 20 years. (despite the fact that no one has tried to do anything in a really long time) He deserves to be a "Sir". He saw the bullshit in Islam, and called them on it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But it IS the Knnighthood. Rushdie has received plenty of awards over time, but it's only when it is a Knighthood that suddenly all this happens.

It is resented for him to have a 'Sir' in front of his name, because that is, apparently, a title that carries weight globally.

It's very interesting, that such ancient institutions still have that evocative power.
It's because the knighthood is probably the highest honour a person can get in this country. It's got nothing to do with the traditions of the honour or what it means, it's just the principle.

Perhaps it was a... strategic move on Britain's part. Perhaps they wanted the extremists to react like that, trick them into giving themselves a bad impression. Well, baddER anyways.

Shame they didnt order a fatwa on Ian Botham

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That depends on the Knihthood, bit frankly, you don't ever see this kind of fuss made on such a globally different level about honours levelled by other countries.

Pakistan is a Commonwealth country so there might be a link there; Iran is more surprising. But the fact of the matter is that the world still pays attention to someone being made a Knight.
It's not just anyone being made a knight though, it's a man that has been in hiding due to threats by extremists across the globe.

The out cry may very well have been influenced by Pakistan's Commonwealth status, it is basically their queen giving an honour to a man they despise.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That depends on the Knihthood, bit frankly, you don't ever see this kind of fuss made on such a globally different level about honours levelled by other countries.

Pakistan is a Commonwealth country so there might be a link there; Iran is more surprising. But the fact of the matter is that the world still pays attention to someone being made a Knight.

Extremists Muslims pay way to much attention to everything, they made a huge uproar about some Danish cartoons. According to the Dutch intelligence agency they were ready to riot about a stupid Dutch politician with a minor seat in our cabinet who said the Qur'an should just be burned, but we were lucky and they had other things to be pissed about instead.

So in short they are pissed off way to much, way to quickly and apparently really enjoy having something to be pissed about.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But the fact of the matter is that the world still pays attention to someone being made a Knight.

Maybe that's because most of the world used to be a part of the British empire...I dunno.

Originally posted by Devil King
Maybe that's because most of the world used to be a part of the British empire...I dunno.

"Part"... That makes me think of "equality", just wasn't so.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I know it's not just anyone; that is kinda the point of this thread.

I still think it is remarkable that countires such as Iran and Pakkistan actually consider a Knighthood as actually something significant for them to comment on for it to be such an insult. Like I say, Rushdie has received plenty of plaudits and awards since the fatwa. Many would say that a system like that of the Knight is now so complwtely irrelevant outside the country of origin that no-one would give a stuff whether they hate the guy or not. But as I said above- the world still pays a certain amount of attention to the fact that someone has a 'Sir' in front of their name.

I cannot, for example, see any award that could be reasonably be given to him by the US that would produce such a reaction. Yeah, good point. To be honest a knighthood is kind of a big deal, I mean, it gives you a new title.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Part"... That makes me think of "equality", just wasn't so.
Part may make you think of "equality" but it's not what it implies, him sayng it wasn't wrong, except for the fact that most of the world wasn't in the British Empire.

Originally posted by Robtard
What? At one point the British Empire ruled over a quarter of the worlds total population and land mass... maybe not "most" of the world, but it was the most extensive empire ever. Duh. 1/4 is not most the world though. That was the only thing wrong with his post though, the fact that he said "part" wasn't wrong, like your post implied.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, I agreed... "maybe not "most" of the world, but it was the most extensive empire ever" . Duh.

Oh, I also said "makes me think"; I also added a "smilie" to denote humor. Double duh, are you one of those oversensitive British twats now?
A smile doesn't represent a joke to me, I've always seen it as a sign of condescension on a forum, which if you look at it now I'm sure you'll understand.

And I'm in no way a sensitive Brit, I'm not bothered about the dynamics of the British empire, I just thought you were patronising someone for no reason.

Originally posted by Robtard
I wouldn't patronize without a reason. Besides, Devilking is an intelligent adult, he could easily handle himself, if I were to be condescending without cause.
I don't know Devilking at all so I didn't know that. I just thought you were being a bit of a tosser, my mistake.

He got the Knighthood for extended services to literature and being a beacon of free speech. People have been given them for less. The fact that he insulted some Muslims should be the most irrelevant thing of all- precious few meaningful writers have not insulted some group or other. That is because such writers are people with ideas, and ideas always insult people with different ideas.

This is why, as I say, this whole incident is another PR disaster for Muslims- the people in, say, the Pakistani parliament commenting on this are simply sounding like crybabies. As Stephen Fry once said- what about their insults to our religion, a religion of tolerance and free speech?

How funny from u lil to ignore his sayings about westerns ..especially white women !




And about the queen herself :



How Rushdie Fooled The West - by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat ..This book is to replay on his stupid book ..must read it

Errmm arent those quotes of a character in The Satanic Verses and not actually Rushdies words?

Fatima:

I think the knighthood was awarded to him for freedom of speech, not for the content of his work. Look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh, Rushdie is being recognized for the fact that he was willing to say something that was potentially fatal for him, and has been hiding from fanatics ever since.

Regardless of what he says, I mean honestly, he could have a chapter devoted to how much of a ******* I am, how big of a **** my mother is and other very offensive things. I don't really care what he believes in, more that he believes it enough to risk his life to say it. That should be awarded in anyone no matter how vile.

Originally posted by inimalist
Fatima:

I think the knighthood was awarded to him for freedom of speech, not for the content of his work. Look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh, Rushdie is being recognized for the fact that he was willing to say something that was potentially fatal for him, and has been hiding from fanatics ever since.

Regardless of what he says, I mean honestly, he could have a chapter devoted to how much of a ******* I am, how big of a **** my mother is and other very offensive things. I don't really care what he believes in, more that he believes it enough to risk his life to say it. That should be awarded in anyone no matter how vile.

Oh yea freedom of speech from the Queen whos announced that she intends to resort to the American judiciary arguing that the book (her ex-servant who puplished a book , in which he spoke of the scandals and moral and permissiveness abuses he saw at the Palais British Queen Elizabeth II when he was a servant for several years ) tarnishes the prestige of the British Royal Family?Where is the freedom of opinion and thought ?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Salman Rushdie, as you might be familiar is the author of Satanic Verses

He has recently been granted knighthood by the Queen of England, which sparked the controversy, in Iran and Pakistan, mostly.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1948375.ece



Thoughts?

Well yes.

If one cares and gets influenced about the western civilisations' accreditments, then, Condition has already taken place . Only the things and annunciations that really matter to one's beliefs' should be accredited. Cause and Effect. Its a waste of time haggling with the west BEcause the west aint going into the detail the east does.

As long as you believe in it, it could yerr life. So why let something from another country's hisoricity be of any disturbance????

Too many countries wanna be westernized; they got the tech from elsewhere.

All the asians should not give flying fvuck and carry on with their lives. the west is actually an attention ho! ( Now, this is the western ideaology.........however its human.)

Originally posted by Fatima
Oh yea freedom of speech from the Queen whos announced that she intends to resort to the American judiciary arguing that the book (her ex-servant who puplished a book , in which he spoke of the scandals and moral and permissiveness abuses he saw at the Palais British Queen Elizabeth II when he was a servant for several years ) tarnishes the prestige of the British Royal Family?Where is the freedom of opinion and thought ?

The thing is I think one of the intentions of the book was to deal with controversial issues within Islam, such as Mohammed being a not very nice person. It wasnt just supposed to be entertainment, it was supposed to deal with controversial issues.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The thing is I think one of the intentions of the book was to deal with controversial issues within Islam, such as Mohammed being a not very nice person. It wasnt just supposed to be entertainment, it was supposed to deal with controversial issues.

Are u kidding me ? His book, from fabricated info he referred to, do not deserve to be faced with scientific answers, because as insults, and descriptions of obscene(using the f word 52 times ) , and not scientific views , or historical require scientific answer . Its only will increase the hatred to the west and more idiots like him will get fame .

Originally posted by Fatima
Oh yea freedom of speech from the Queen whos announced that she intends to resort to the American judiciary arguing that the book (her ex-servant who puplished a book , in which he spoke of the scandals and moral and permissiveness abuses he saw at the Palais British Queen Elizabeth II when he was a servant for several years ) tarnishes the prestige of the British Royal Family?Where is the freedom of opinion and thought ?

You can libel people, but not ideas.

That Freedom of Speech is vry much alive and well for all who have the wit to see it.

Your assertions that Rushdie insulted things in the West as well only makes Islam look increasingly intolerant. The West doesn't care, see? They DO care about his freedom of expression, though.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can libel people, but not ideas.

That Freedom of Speech is vry much alive and well for all who have the wit to see it.

Your assertions that Rushdie insulted things in the West as well only makes Islam look increasingly intolerant. The West doesn't care, see? They DO care about his freedom of expression, though.

The freedom of religion and speech in Islam is exit too but in limits , insulting others people belifes is forbiden though .The west play of double standards when its come to Islam .When the filmmaker jeans Thorage announced intention to bring the film in England on "sexual life" of the Christ (its cuase to the strong wave of anger in religious institutions, especially the European Vatican and the Archdiocese of Canterbury) British Prime Minister at that time, James Callaghan by warning that any attempt to bring such a film in England will be liable to prosecution under the law insulting sanctities, which praised the filmmaker is not producing the film.same thing in 1989 a documentary about Sister Teresa lived in Britain in the 16th century on British television screens because of the content of the film which can be construed as an insult to the Christian faith .Or with GAY NEWS newspaper in 1976 puplished a poem - British poet James Kirkup describing Christ in inappropriate situations .And the HOLOCAUST many many cases that the west draw aline on it

Still a death threat is going over the top, don't you think?

Originally posted by Fatima
The freedom of religion and speech in Islam is exit too but in limits , insulting others people belifes is forbiden though .The west play of double standards when its come to Islam .When the filmmaker jeans Thorage announced intention to bring the film in England on "sexual life" of the Christ (its cuase to the strong wave of anger in religious institutions, especially the European Vatican and the Archdiocese of Canterbury) British Prime Minister at that time, James Callaghan by warning that any attempt to bring such a film in England will be liable to prosecution under the law insulting sanctities, which praised the filmmaker is not producing the film.same thing in 1989 a documentary about Sister Teresa lived in Britain in the 16th century on British television screens because of the content of the film which can be construed as an insult to the Christian faith .Or with GAY NEWS newspaper in 1976 puplished a poem - British poet James Kirkup describing Christ in inappropriate situations .And the HOLOCAUST many many cases that the west draw aline on it

Ermm Mohamed asked his followers to kill a man who insulted him. People use this as evidence to justify fatwas.

Listen.

Forget about it. Its a man's book and it based on opinion reflected on history; its there to be interpreted as one gets it. Otherwise it (history)would be a mundane subject.

Originally posted by GCG
Listen.

Forget about it. Its a man's book and it based on opinion reflected on history; its there to be interpreted as one gets it. Otherwise it (history)would be a mundane subject.

Well it was pretty blantant. Some guy insulted Mohammed and Mohammed asked two people to kill this guy. History is important it explains why things are the way they are today. I have also heard some muslims use this as a jusitifcation for making fatwas.

The whole bloody point was that fatima said Islam allows freedom of speech.

*sigh*

And this is why I hate Islam

Muslim : Yay , let's follow our archaic ideals , anyone who points out the obvious flaws in them shall die because we must continue living in an outdated manner 75% of the word dropped by the 1920's

Rushdie : *points out flaws*

Muslim : Arrghghgh you have pointed out several inconsistencies within our holy book now any attacks can be justified as acting upon your death

Or to put things in a simple manner.

Islam needs to grow the f*ck up, just because someone insults your shoddily made book of fairy tales doesn't mean you now have 'justification' to murder even more people, people insult the wests book of fairy tales all the time and we don't see mass deaths due to it do we ? !

No.

Originally posted by Fatima
The freedom of religion and speech in Islam is exit too but in limits , insulting others people belifes is forbiden though .The west play of double standards when its come to Islam .When the filmmaker jeans Thorage announced intention to bring the film in England on "sexual life" of the Christ (its cuase to the strong wave of anger in religious institutions, especially the European Vatican and the Archdiocese of Canterbury) British Prime Minister at that time, James Callaghan by warning that any attempt to bring such a film in England will be liable to prosecution under the law insulting sanctities, which praised the filmmaker is not producing the film.same thing in 1989 a documentary about Sister Teresa lived in Britain in the 16th century on British television screens because of the content of the film which can be construed as an insult to the Christian faith .Or with GAY NEWS newspaper in 1976 puplished a poem - British poet James Kirkup describing Christ in inappropriate situations .And the HOLOCAUST many many cases that the west draw aline on it

yes, people who believe in freedom of speech would also be against these

what is your point? I dont necessarily understand what you are trying to proove by saying that people everywhere are intollerant of ideas that they do not support. Britain has international shame in the freedom circles for its blasphemy laws, the same as former nazi countries and their inprisioning of holocaust deniers.

However, these cases are few and far between, and the "west" is hardly a homogenous ideological entity. Taken as a whole, freedom of speech is alive and well, especially in north america, and if you really need proof of that go look up Piss Christ.

Originally posted by Fatima
The freedom of religion and speech in Islam is exit too but in limits , insulting others people belifes is forbiden though .The west play of double standards when its come to Islam .When the filmmaker jeans Thorage announced intention to bring the film in England on "sexual life" of the Christ (its cuase to the strong wave of anger in religious institutions, especially the European Vatican and the Archdiocese of Canterbury) British Prime Minister at that time, James Callaghan by warning that any attempt to bring such a film in England will be liable to prosecution under the law insulting sanctities, which praised the filmmaker is not producing the film.same thing in 1989 a documentary about Sister Teresa lived in Britain in the 16th century on British television screens because of the content of the film which can be construed as an insult to the Christian faith .Or with GAY NEWS newspaper in 1976 puplished a poem - British poet James Kirkup describing Christ in inappropriate situations .And the HOLOCAUST many many cases that the west draw aline on it

You mean insulting people's RELIGIOUS beliefs, because Islam insults secular beliefs all the time. This outrage against the award is one such insult.

However, what you say is also a lie. Freedom of belief? Try reading a Bible in Saudi Arabia. See how free how are allowed to be.

Using decades old examples is pointless. Such censorship always was a mistake. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is mocked all the time but tends to take it on the chin. Blasphemy laws are an outdated relic and no-one takes them seriously any more. But even then they are not remotely comparable to the extreme intolerance that Islam seems to promote.

There is nothing approaching a double standard. Rushdie insulted Christianity quite thoroughly as well. So what?

This kind of behaviour simply makes Islam look childish. And you cannot pretend any pretence of free speech when inciting murder just because someone mocked your beliefs. It is absolutely beyond the pale.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well it was pretty blantant. Some guy insulted Mohammed and Mohammed asked two people to kill this guy. History is important it explains why things are the way they are today. I have also heard some muslims use this as a jusitifcation for making fatwas.

The whole bloody point was that fatima said Islam allows freedom of speech.

Do you know anything about history? EVERY ruler during his time did that. EVERY man in a position of power did that.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, people who believe in freedom of speech would also be against these

what is your point? I dont necessarily understand what you are trying to proove by saying that people everywhere are intollerant of ideas that they do not support. Britain has international shame in the freedom circles for its blasphemy laws, the same as former nazi countries and their inprisioning of holocaust deniers.

However, these cases are few and far between, and the "west" is hardly a homogenous ideological entity. Taken as a whole, freedom of speech is alive and well, especially in north america, and if you really need proof of that go look up Piss Christ.

You ever read the list of 'restricted' books in US libraries?

Frankly North America has never had any claim to superiority of freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You ever read the list of 'restricted' books in US libraries?

Frankly North America has never had any claim to superiority of freedom of speech.

nothing is perfect, however, I am exposed to many more news stories comming out of Europe than North America that I would consider issues of free speech.

Serrano and Maplethorpe have also set VERY broad definitions to freedom of speech, and I would be interested in knowing what the federal government qualifies as being disallowed speech.

I think there may also be a difference between censorship and library access, though in a perfect world, a state run institution wouldn't care about such matters. Pragmatically, how much buisnuiss is a library going to do if religious groups picketted them for having pornography? Then again, I say this without having seen the list.

EDIT: After a quick look, all I can find about American censorship deals with public libraries and schools. Nothing about restricting the sale of the books. Still evil, not overt censorship imho

Also flag burning, Vietnam protests in the 60s... I think you will find an objective list shows that North America and Western Europe have parity, they all have their ups and downs.

When you talk of 'international shame in freedom circles', I think you will find the US takes a lot more flak than the UK.

anti-americanism is the flavor of the month

I hear what you are saying, and I am in no way promoting the united states as the bastion of liberty. My point wasn't that America is freer than Europe, more a comparison of blasphemy laws, which America doesn't have a Britain does. Also laws against Holocaust denial, which america doesn't have.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Do you know anything about history? EVERY ruler during his time did that. EVERY man in a position of power did that.

The point is she said that Islam has freedom of speech. Mohammed is supposed to be an example for muslims and muslims derive what is allowed and not allowed from his action in the hadiths. In the hadiths Mohammed asked his followers to kill a man because he insulted him and people today use this as an example to justify fatwas.

Therefore Islam does not allow freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You ever read the list of 'restricted' books in US libraries?

Frankly North America has never had any claim to superiority of freedom of speech.

I just went and quickly looked up a few lists of books that have been banned at some point in the US, and it's completely ridiculous.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Salman Rushdie, as you might be familiar is the author of Satanic Verses

He has recently been granted knighthood by the Queen of England, which sparked the controversy, in Iran and Pakistan, mostly.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1948375.ece



Thoughts?

At the risk of talking about a topic that eventually leads to both sides being angry with one another and nothing being resolved I will say nothing and keep listening to Keep it Comin Love by KC and the Sunshine Band and continue to enjoy my day. <------Former Marine.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, people who believe in freedom of speech would also be against these

what is your point? I dont necessarily understand what you are trying to proove by saying that people everywhere are intollerant of ideas that they do not support. Britain has international shame in the freedom circles for its blasphemy laws, the same as former nazi countries and their inprisioning of holocaust deniers.

However, these cases are few and far between, and the "west" is hardly a homogenous ideological entity. Taken as a whole, freedom of speech is alive and well, especially in north america, and if you really need proof of that go look up Piss Christ.

Freedom of speech is one thing and deliberate humiliation of cultures and religions and ethical and religious symbols of others something else in the west or north America there is no aboslute freedom ..hey remeber cancellation of art exhibition in New York city that shows a sculpture of choclat for Jesus Christ naked , beside the Jewish lobby in US and their role in changing the facts !

Is it allow in freedom of expression in Western talking about issues such as the crimes of America and Israel or an accident such as the Holocaust, or that freedom of expression that only fitted to insult sacred values of divine religions?

Originally posted by Fatima
Freedom of speech is one thing and deliberate humiliation of cultures and religions and ethical and religious symbols of others something else in the west or north America there is no aboslute freedom ..hey remeber cancellation of art exhibition in New York city that shows a sculpture of choclat for Jesus Christ naked , beside the Jewish lobby in US and their role in changing the facts !

Is it allow in freedom of expression in Western talking about issues such as the crimes of America and Israel or an accident such as the Holocaust, or that freedom of expression that only fitted to insult sacred values of divine religions?

Of course there are limits to freedom of speech. Where to put those limits is always a tricky thing, but I can assure you when people, mostly Muslims, start threatening with acts of terrorism if something is allowed to continue then that is a damned good reason to actually allow it to take place.

Bowing down for threats or even actual violence is never the right thing to do.

Originally posted by Fatima
Freedom of speech is one thing and deliberate humiliation of cultures and religions and ethical and religious symbols of others something else in the west or north America there is no aboslute freedom ..hey remeber cancellation of art exhibition in New York city that shows a sculpture of choclat for Jesus Christ naked , beside the Jewish lobby in US and their role in changing the facts !

Is it allow in freedom of expression in Western talking about issues such as the crimes of America and Israel or an accident such as the Holocaust, or that freedom of expression that only fitted to insult sacred values of divine religions?

most "censorship" is self imposed. many museums won't hold certain shows simply because of the controversy. Serrano's Klan pictures or any Mapplethorpe show is very difficult to find, much like the chocolate jesus.

And in western nations it is fine to ***** about isreal and america. My friends and I were talking about how ****ed isreal is now and how it is evil that they are continuing to destabilize palestine at the same time as the conflict is spilling out into Lebanon. Holocaust denial is perfectly allowed.

The thing is, the ONLY people who get pissed off about free speech are the religious or family groups. Thats why religious art is often the target, it is about who is offended, which isn't right, but it does show that religious people may need a bit thicker of a skin.

I think you would be hard pressed to find expression that is just outright banned CURRENTLY in North America (Canada where I live has much stricter hate speech laws than America, so that might be one, same with owning a nazi flag...)