Did this man deserve a Knighthood??

Jackie laughlin

Of course we would be outraged and of course that outrage could and should be forcefully stated. However, if anyone in a free society were to incite or encourage someone to murder, they should be jailed.

Go back to the original Fatwah. Rushdie wrote a book which upset the meglomaniac mullah in the tent, who then called on muslims to kill Rushdie. The former's novels are crushingly boring but relieved by a bit of irreverence while the latter was inciting murder. The gulf between right and wrong could not be wider.

Incidentally, Cat Stevens said on the Late Late Show that he supported the Fatwah and would kill Rushdie if the opportunity arose. I take that he will not be allowed enter this country again. Yes, Cat Stevens uses another name now and yes, I'm being rude. Who wants to reprimand me for being rude about a man who speaks in favour of murder?

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Its been said, in his choosen field he was not outstanding or even deliver great service.

I've never read one of his books so I can't comment.

Zambia232 wrote:

True but you missed my piont there was no requirement he be given a knighthood now......Or years in the future..

What requirement was there to give Ryan Giggs an OBE now? Why not a few years ago when he won his eight Premiership medal or wait until he reaches ten. The committee that decides on these things said that Giggs, the underwear manufacturers, Ian Botham, Teddy Sheringham and Salman Rushdie had all contributed enough to society to merit a civic honour. Why should Salman Rushdie be ignored because he wrote a book which annoyed one man almost twenty years ago?

stovelid wrote:

I doubt that offended Muslims care what SR is being knighted for. They just see an infidel.

Salman is a Muslim. Or at least of a Muslim family.

stovelid wrote:

If we had a situation where a terrorist clearly associated with 7/7 was up for the Nobel price in science or an similar honor in Pakistan; I'm sure it would cause diplomatic (and public) outrage in Britain, whether they had a right to be outraged or not.

Yes I can see crowds outside Canterbury Cathedral on Sunday morning jumping up and down on blazing Pakistani flags and effigies of Musharraf being burnt in the streets. Not likely

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Incidentally, Cat Stevens said on the Late Late Show that he supported the Fatwah and would kill Rushdie if the opportunity arose. I take that he will not be allowed enter this country again. Yes, Cat Stevens uses another name now and yes, I'm being rude. Who wants to reprimand me for being rude about a man who speaks in favour of murder?

Well you haven't been rude enough.:D

democrates wrote:

...but in socio-political terms the net impact of his choice in how he used his freedom of speech has not been for the greater good...
If someone wanted to improve things they could write a short and very accessible book that asks questions not of Islam itself which is counter-productive, but how and to what extent ordinary muslims can interpret the Koran safely, without misreading what they believe to be the words of Allah and thereby incurring divine wrath...

Therein lies a problem. Why should people be afraid to question Islam. People question Christianity all the time. Did the Pope demand the head of Nikos Kazantzakis for his blasphemy? Why shouldn't Rushdie, a Muslim, be allowed question the basis of his religion?

Incidentally an author not allowed interpret the Koran. It is the word of God delivered to Mohammed. God is infallible therefore his word is infallible and not open to interpretation. Which leads us back to the religious nutters who issue the Fatwas.

fly_agaric

Zambia232 wrote:

The pure fact is the UK is holding someone up as being a good example when another society believes they are the Polar opposite.

With respect, making an analogy like that implies a nasty kind of equivalence even if that wasn't what you intended.

Zambia232 wrote:

Its also not a case of bowing to Muslim pressure either as there was no cry from the british public either to have him knighted.

Again with the
If they decided to give it to someone else they would be changing procedures wouldn't they?
Which would be either due to "muslim pressure", or maybe for the good of "their" health...:)

Zambia232 wrote:

As for the mind your own business re-mark we all live on the same planet.

Good point. Thankfully we don't yet have a UN Muslim Sensitivities Council which every country must report to to receive their "approved" list of novelists they can honour without causing "Offence to Islam" ):gasp!:.

Jackie laughlin

Let us applaud irreverence!

stovelid

Mick86 wrote:

Salman is a Muslim. Or at least of a Muslim family.

Apologies, I wasn't aware of that.

Wouldn't they still see him as guilty of apostasy? The point was that protesting Muslims see the 'crime' and not his achievements.

Mick86 wrote:

Yes I can see crowds outside Canterbury Cathedral on Sunday morning jumping up and down on blazing Pakistani flags and effigies of Musharraf being burnt in the streets. Not likely

A bit facetious this.

My point stands: A lot of people in Britain would be offended if a 7/7 terrorist was lauded for achievements in other fields.


I should point out that I'm getting away from my original point here. I don't believe in 'bowing to mecca' (as another poster put it) when enforcing secular law in the UK. However, I just thought a knighthood is hardly a pressing enough matter to spark all this trouble unless of course there is a motive, to wit: to make a political point or to signal the start of a harder line against Muslim protests.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Incidentally, Cat Stevens said on the Late Late Show that he supported the Fatwah and would kill Rushdie if the opportunity arose. I take that he will not be allowed enter this country again. Yes, Cat Stevens uses another name now and yes, I'm being rude. Who wants to reprimand me for being rude about a man who speaks in favour of murder?

:eek:

Don't remember this. What was the response?

Mick86

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Let us applaud irreverence!

Only as long as we are not being irreverent towards Islam. We have an obligation to be tolerant towards them you know because otherwise they'll blow the sh1t out of our transport system.:D

fly_agaric

stovelid wrote:

I was just observing the 'probable equal outrage' on both sides...If we had a situation where a terrorist clearly associated with 7/7 was up for the Nobel price in science or an similar honor in Pakistan; I'm sure it would cause diplomatic (and public) outrage in Britain, whether they had a right to be outraged or not.

But being famous (or notorious) for killing commuters by blowing yourself up is always somewhat worse than being famous (or notorious) for writing a book that píssed alot of people off isn't it? It's not all relative.

In that case it would seem that the British reallly would have more right to their outrage.

Jackie laughlin

I say, "The Prophet is a bollicks!"

If you disagree or are offended, what is an "acceptable" response?

Mick86

stovelid wrote:

My point stands: A lot of people in Britain would be offended if a 7/7 terrorist was lauded for achievements in other fields.

Naturally. But what crime has Salman committed that he should be denied an award for his work?

stovelid wrote:

However, I just thought a knighthood is hardly a pressing enough matter to spark all this trouble unless of course there is a motive, to wit: to make a political point or to signal the start of a harder line against Muslim protests.

So from now on, any award to an author, Booker Prize, Nobel Prize or whatever must only be made having first ensured that the recipient has never written anything that could be construed as an offence against Islam. To be on the safe side he or she had better sign an undertaking not to offend Islam in the future. Jews will naturally be barred from nomination. Oh, and women too. Just in case it offends Islam.

Now I am being facetious but maybe you see the point that Britain does not have to confer with the Mullahs, or even take their feelings into account, before honouring Salman Rushdie. The honour was awarded by a democratic, liberal society to a man who has committed no crime. Why should Britain dilute democracy by allowing Iran or Pakistan dictate to it the basis on which it makes such decisions.

stovelid

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I say, "The Prophet is a bollicks!"

If you disagree or are offended, what is an "acceptable" response?

Ka-boom

Mick86 wrote:

Naturally. But what crime has Salman committed that he should be denied an award for his work?

No crime, only a "crime". We're both agreed on that.

Mick86 wrote:

Why should Britain dilute democracy by allowing Iran or Pakistan dictate to it the basis on which it makes such decisions.

They haven't in this case obviously.

By choosing to award him thus (probably as much a symbolic gesture toward his persecution as an award for his literature) they have made a political point.

fly_agaric

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I say, "The Prophet is a bollicks!"

If you disagree or are offended, what is an "acceptable" response?

On this board, a banning if you happen to be in the Islam Forum.:p

Perhaps this man might be upset also at such an insult?

SeanW

I agree with many of the above posts. The West, and those of us who treasure the values of humanity, must make it very clear that Islamofascism won't be pandered to. Because its a slippery slope.

Zebra3

The Corinthian wrote:

In fairness, I don't think Zebra3 is capable of saying anything like that, TBH.

:rolleyes:

And why's that?

In theory acknowledging the good that someone like Geldof done is commendable, but those systems get abused and he ends up with the same level of acknowledgement as some muppet like Beckham or below someone who made huge donations to the political party who were in power for a certain length of time.

As I said earlier, a load of elitist crap.

Mick86

stovelid wrote:

By choosing to award him thus (probably as much a symbolic gesture toward his persecution as an award for his literature) they have made a political point.

What political point? Honouring a writer who insulted Islam twenty years ago is just too obscure a means of making a political point. Besides which the people who rule Iran and Pakistan don't give a damn about Rushdie. He's just a convenient means of keeping the peasants on the boil over mythical insults to Islam. It's not like the Iranians are going to get all depressed over this and shut down the nuclear weapons program or the Pakis close down all their terrorist academies. Bombing Baghdad is making a political point. Giving a boring bstard an OBE is just blowing up his ego. Pun intended.

The Corinthian

Zebra3 wrote:

And why's that?

I'd tell you, but it might be interpreted as personal abuse by a moderator.

In theory acknowledging the good that someone like Geldof done is commendable, but those systems get abused and he ends up with the same level of acknowledgement as some muppet like Beckham or below someone who made huge donations to the political party who were in power for a certain length of time.

As I said earlier, a load of elitist crap.

Suggesting that something is good in theory but prone to abuse is not the same as calling it 'elitist crap'. The former is a fair comment, the latter is a juvenile one.

stovelid

Mick86 wrote:

What political point? Honouring a writer who insulted Islam twenty years ago is just too obscure a means of making a political point.

Although the SV is 20 years old, a lot more bad 'US/UK axis'-Muslim world water has gone under the bridge since 1988. It must have crossed the minds of the UK establishment that awarding SR would go down badly with some Muslims. They went ahead and awarded him anyway. It's reasonable to assume that they were making a point, however minor.

Mick86 wrote:

Besides which the people who rule Iran and Pakistan don't give a damn about Rushdie. He's just a convenient means of keeping the peasants on the boilover mythical insults to Islam.

I personally don't know these leaders enough to say for sure that they are careerist apostates who are "keeping the peasants on the boil" TBH.

Mick86 wrote:

Bombing Baghdad is making a political point. Giving a boring bstard an OBE is just blowing up his ego. Pun intended.

Nope, bombing Bagdhad is making a political point militarily. There are others ways of making a political point.

As for the boring bstard bit. I tried to get into his books and never understood the fuss so mmmm

Anyway, this is getting circuitous and I'm not going to be the Islamic bad cop in this argument

My original point was only that the UK are correct to insist that Muslim citizens abide by secular laws but that this minor issue was always going to cause a lot of grief. Especially as much harder decisions will probably be made down the line regarding fundamentalists in the UK.

cavedave

Ok it is money where your mouth is time

I am of the opinion that people should not care that some criminals are going to riot over Salman Rushdie.

But now there is a new "love ulster" march planned am I willing to allow this in spite that some criminals will likely try smash up the city centre? I am but I do not own a shop/work in the Dublin city centre so it is easy for me to be brave.

Can anyone else see an equivelance between honouring Salman Rushdie and allowing a "love Ulster" march in terms of the likely outcome of each?

stovelid

cavedave wrote:

Can anyone else see an equivelance between honouring Salman Rushdie and allowing a "love Ulster" march in terms of the likely outcome of each?

I refuse to answer this until we verify if SR is a taig or prod apostate...

SeanW

Yes. The Love Ulster people should be allowed to march. But this time with the Army on standby in case another horde of thugs show up to ransack the city centre.

Last time around there were only minimal preparations for trouble. In addition, the City Council was called on to remove loose bricks from the O'Connell St. regeneration works, and other work sites in the City Centre. But instead gates, boards, bricks and other construction supplies (ammunition) was left lying around for the mob to use.

The last time the Love Ulster parade attempted their lawful march, the authorities were caught with their trousers down. That mistake should not be repeated.

Make no mistake - Islamofascism is insidious. And Islamofascist terrorists don't need a reason to murder people and bomb things. Just excuses that get used for propoganda.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote:

:rolleyes:

And why's that?

In theory acknowledging the good that someone like Geldof done is commendable, but those systems get abused and he ends up with the same level of acknowledgement as some muppet like Beckham or below someone who made huge donations to the political party who were in power for a certain length of time.

As I said earlier, a load of elitist crap.

I agree with some of what you say, the England Cricket team being given OBEs for winning the Ashes in my opinion, made a mockery of the honours system. But, An old neighbour of mine, a widow in her sixties, had been running the local Netball league for around 40 years. She did this out of a love of the game and out of a love for her community. She tried to get a Muslim team, not because she wanted more Muslim's playing, but because she could see that Muslim girls were, geneally speaking, unable to integrate because of their family's values. She did all this for no reward, but was, quite rightly, awarded an OBE two years ago.

To say that the honours are "Elitist Crap" is very disrespectful to a country's recognition system that more often than not, recognises the little person, it's just that the afore mentioned recipient does not make the headlines.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

I've never read one of his books so I can't comment.

See I dont think anyone wants to read any of his books.

Mick86 wrote:

What requirement was there to give Ryan Giggs an OBE now?

There was none but there was no reason not to.

Mick86 wrote:

Why should Salman Rushdie be ignored because he wrote a book which annoyed one man almost twenty years ago?

Ok the the word "annoyed" and "one" are understatements

Mick86 wrote:

Salman is a Muslim. Or at least of a Muslim family.

I fail to see how that means anything

Mick86 wrote:

Therein lies a problem. Why should people be afraid to question Islam. People question Christianity all the time. Did the Pope demand the head of Nikos Kazantzakis for his blasphemy? Why shouldn't Rushdie, a Muslim, be allowed question the basis of his religion?

He should however I just dont think he deserved an Honour for his work.

stovelid

Fratton Fred wrote:

To say that the honours are "Elitist Crap" is very disrespectful to a country's recognition system that more often than not, recognises the little person, it's just that the afore mentioned recipient does not make the headlines.

I think people are really criticizing the monarchy when they criticize the honors system TBH.

You're right though. It shouldn't detract from the awards themselves (Geldof, Fred's example, etc) just because you don't agree with the system.

In the British political context, I guess that receiving an award from the monarch is the same as receiving one from Mary McAleese here.

Zambia

fly_agaric wrote:

With respect, making an analogy like that implies a nasty kind of equivalence even if that wasn't what you intended.

I think your finding hidden meaning in my posts

fly_agaric wrote:

Again with the
If they decided to give it to someone else they would be changing procedures wouldn't they?
Which would be either due to "muslim pressure", or maybe for the good of "their" health...:)

Once again there was no pressure to give it to him or not to give it to him

fly_agaric wrote:

Good point. Thankfully we don't yet have a UN Muslim Sensitivities Council which every country must report to to receive their "approved" list of novelists they can honour without causing "Offence to Islam" ):gasp!:.

Sometimes if you just bear in mind the sensitivitys of others in can go a long way. By not giving him the award I am sure Salman would have known no different , we would know on different and no one in ther middle east can use it as a recruiting tool.

FTA69

Why should someone be "knighted" in the first place?

The Corinthian

stovelid wrote:

I think people are really criticizing the monarchy when they criticize the honors system TBH.

It tends to be a brainless anglophobic reflex reaction or related to some idiotic notion of class war/struggle/whatever.

That no system of recognition of this type exists in Ireland and that Ireland is pretty much the only country in the EU that lacks it is an indication of our immaturity where it comes to this subject. In fact, so up our arse are we on the subject that an Irish citizen requires permission from the government to accept such an honour if offered by another country.

I know of at least one case of an individual in Ireland who made a very significant achievement (that involved another EU country - not the UK) that Ireland has subsequently benefited from. Ireland gave him nothing for it and in the end he received a knighthood from the other country, as much out of embarrassment for Ireland's omission as the achievement itself.

Certainly such honours systems can be abused, but that in itself is not a reason not to have them as the need to recognize achievement for the good of the community seriously outweighs this.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

Why should someone be "knighted" in the first place?

Because it is better to reward achievement and work for one's community than to reward mediocrity.

wes

Mick86 wrote:

It's not like the Iranians are going to get all depressed over this and shut down the nuclear weapons program or the Pakis close down all their terrorist academies.

I don't if your aware, but a quick heads up in anyways. "Paki" is considered a racist term to anyone from the Indian Sub continent and is used as such. I am sure even Mr. Rushide would be offended too, and I am sure he has had it hurled at himself a few times.

Anyway, the leaders of Pakistan and Iran, are stoking this kind of crap for political gain, instead of using this as an opportunity to try and educate the populace about freedom of expression and that if they are still annoyed by it, then a peaceful protest is perfectly acceptable way of expressing it as many other people do for many causes no matter how silly others may see it.

Zambia

wes wrote:

I don't if your aware, but a quick heads up in anyways. "Paki" is considered a racist term to anyone from the Sub continent and is used as such.

If we where on big brother you would so be on the Front page of the SUN Tommorow.

I agree with the knight hoods they are just a way of honouring Achievement like a medal or freedom of the city

El Stuntman

I think the title of this thread should be changed to 'does this man deserve to be allowed live in peace and express himself through his fiction writings?'

whether he gets a knighthood or not is incidental - the fundies in the Muslim world hadn't forgotten about him!

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Ok the the word "annoyed" and "one" are understatements

It was Khomenei started all this bollocks with his Fatwa.

Zambia232 wrote:

I fail to see how that means anything

Giving Stovelid a heads-up since he referred to Rushdie as an infidel.

Zambia232 wrote:

He should however I just dont think he deserved an Honour for his work.

Maybe I'll bite the bullet and read one of his books. Then I'll get back to you on that.

wes wrote:

I don't if your aware, but a quick heads up in anyways. "Paki" is considered a racist term to anyone from the Indian Sub continent and is used as such. .

No rascism intended just that my typing finger is wearing out. Also Americans, the most PC people in the universe, use the expression all the time. Paki is pejorative in Britain, Indians probably call the Pakistanis far worse things.

wes wrote:

Anyway, the leaders of Pakistan and Iran, are stoking this kind of crap for political gain, instead of using this as an opportunity to try and educate the populace about freedom of expression and that if they are still annoyed by it, then a peaceful protest is perfectly acceptable way of expressing it as many other people do for many causes no matter how silly others may see it.

The leaders of Pakistan and Iran are most definitely not interested in freedom of expression. And a Pakistani government minister calling for suicide bombing attacks on Britain is is definitely not peaceful protest.