Did this man deserve a Knighthood??

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

It was Khomenei started all this bollocks with his Fatwa.

Im will put myself out there and say it was Salman , he knew what he was doing when he wrote the book

Mick86 wrote:

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

True enough sorry missed that

Mick86 wrote:

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

Please do , I looked at the back and cant be arsed

El Stuntman

Zambia232 wrote:

Im will put myself out there and say it was Salman , he knew what he was doing when he wrote the book

wow

fly_agaric

Zambia232 wrote:

Sometimes if you just bear in mind the sensitivitys of others in can go a long way.

The sensitivities of who though? Fundamentalists + jihadi types? Their sensitivity when it comes to any issues involving Western countries and Islam is very high, the slightest thing might set off a nasty new bout of evilwestitis. We'd all probably be far better off constructing one of those plastic bubble type things for people with no immune systems for ourselves.

I don't think their "allergies" are actually worth these levels of consideration and I'm quite sure that works both ways tbh.

Morlar

El Stuntman wrote:

wow

That was my response on reading that bit too. Salman rushdie wrote a book - however boring, interesting or controversial. He didnt kill anyone - muslims should get over their complex on this. They dont own the world and cant tell other people how to think (rushdie for his books or britain for who it decides to honour).

stovelid

Morlar wrote:

That was my response on reading that bit too. Salman rushdie wrote a book - however boring, interesting or controversial. He didnt kill anyone - muslims should get over their complex on this. They dont own the world and cant tell other people how to think (rushdie for his books or britain for who it decides to honour).

Read the whole thread. I think Zambia was rebutting the assertion that Khomenei started the whole thing, i.e fatwa.

mike65

For whoever it was who asked, Cat Stevens is now Yusuf Islam these days and I think he's moderated his views somewhat.

Mike.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Im will put myself out there and say it was Salman , he knew what he was doing when he wrote the book

stovelid wrote:

Read the whole thread. I think Zambia was rebutting the assertion that Khomenei started the whole thing, i.e fatwa.

Maybe Salman believes in exotic ideas like freedom of expression.

Jackie laughlin

Mick86,
So you're going to read Rushdie. Never mind "The Satanic Verses", read "December's Children" and I'll see that you get 76 (No, make that 77) virgins in paradise. If this is not to your liking you can have a plenary indulgence.

Seriously, if anyone has any doubts about Rushdie search the web for his views on democracy. If he never wrote a novel, he should be praised.

Zambia

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Mick86,
So you're going to read Rushdie. Never mind "The Satanic Verses", read "December's Children" and I'll see that you get 76 (No, make that 77) virgins in paradise. If this is not to your liking you can have a plenary indulgence.

Seriously, if anyone has any doubts about Rushdie search the web for his views on democracy. If he never wrote a novel, he should be praised.

Look at its this way just because you have the right to free speech , You dont have to use it to piss off people unnecessarily.

Can anyone tell me why the Satanic verses was necessary?

cavedave

You dont have to use it to piss off people unnecessarily.

Can anyone tell me why the Satanic verses was necessary?

Ok here is my go.
The satanic verses contained a passage satirizing the Koran. This satire lead to government sponsored assassination attempts against a writer. Satire is important because it is the form of free speech that mocks those in power. Without the ability to point out the foibles of those who control us any concept of free political debate ends.

Take the whoremogering cripple (crippled by someone who did not like what he published) Larry Flynt. He has the balls to be friends with people he disagrees with. People who sued him. This scumbag even went to jail so that you can get offended and no one else has to care. He fought to stop a situation where “All anyone would have to prove is that "he upset me" or "she made me feel bad." The lawsuits would be endless, and that would be the end of free speech”[1].
Instead of “lawsuits” imagine it was being “stabbings in the street like Van Gogh” and you get some idea of why cartoons and books can be so important

[1]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-flynt20may20,0,2297247.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Morlar

stovelid wrote:

Read the whole thread. I think Zambia was rebutting the assertion that Khomenei started the whole thing, i.e fatwa.

I had read it and think that it is not rushdie who is to blame.

Zambia

Morlar wrote:

I had read it and think that it is not rushdie who is to blame.

If Rushdie did not write the book no-one would be offended. Like i said before it was not a wise move despite his right to write it.

El Stuntman

Zambia232 wrote:

If Rushdie did not write the book no-one would be offended. Like i said before it was not a wise move despite his right to write it.

ridiculous assertation imo, if artists/novelists/musicians worried about offending people before producing anything, then we would never get any artistic output of value

oh wait, that's what happens in the Muslim world. Now there's a statement for you - care to refute it?

Schuhart

To make perspective clear, I’m not suggesting for a minute that Salman Rushdie should not have written the Satanic Verses or that the UK should not give him a knighthood if they feel the urge.

As a book the Satanic Verses IMHO is roughly equivalent to Joseph Heller’s God Knows, which similarly cuts religion down to human level (and includes God justifying his arbitrary actions on the grounds that ‘I want to trot out my stuff for the Children of Israel’). Reverence, smeverence.

That said, I doubt if the UK did this without contemplating the inevitable reaction. Which suggest to me they do want to drag a coat-tail around the Islamic world to see who’ll stand on it. I don’t see that they’re wrong to do it. Provocation is useful if it exposes wrong.

What’s at the heart of the Satanic Verses controversy is a doctrine within Islam that an apostate should be put to death. This should, of course, only be relevant in countries subject to the Sharia. In practice, many Islamic states don’t apply a death penalty (such as Malaysia and Pakistan). But the concept of freedom of religion and, in particular, the right of people born into Muslim families to choose a different religion or none still has quite a distance to go within Islam.

Is this act by the UK provocative? I’d say yes. But if honouring a novelist who (leaving aside if you’ve read him or not) has actually achieved literary notice is provocative, then I’d say its necessary provocation.

Zambia

El Stuntman wrote:

ridiculous assertation imo, if artists/novelists/musicians worried about offending people before producing anything, then we would never get any artistic output of value

oh wait, that's what happens in the Muslim world. Now there's a statement for you - care to refute it?

I am not going to as my knowledge of how the Muslim world operates is really not up to the task.

What I do know is this book served no great purpose as far as I can see to further the understanding of Islam or anything else for that matter.

Its not a riduclous assertion however to state that just because people can write stuff that incites hatred and violence which this book did. Is it prudent or wise to without good cause.

Veronica Guerin was shot for writing about gangland violence while knowing the this would incite the gangland cummunity. Her work however was justified that its raised awareness of issues not discussed at the time.

The satanic verses I can't draw the same parallels from. Persoonally I believe SR without the Satanic Verses would have been just another writer.

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

If Rushdie did not write the book no-one would be offended. Like i said before it was not a wise move despite his right to write it.

By that logic Galileo Galilei probably shouldn't have published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

Of the question of what is acceptable and not in satire or debate is an open one and the West has frankly looked pretty hypocritical in its defense. After all, why should this be deemed acceptable or fair comment and this offensive? But that's probably OT for this thread.

Jackie laughlin

I've read Rushdie including his pretentious novels. Nowhere does he incite hatred or violence.

There was a time when I thought that freedom of speech should be tempered so as to avoid offence. I now believe it important to be irreverent at least until everyone gets used to it and doesn't respond with violence or calls to violence.

All who agree chant, "The prophet is a bollicks!"

El Stuntman

Zambia232 wrote:

IIts not a riduclous assertion however to state that just because people can write stuff that incites hatred and violence which this book did. Is it prudent or wise to without good cause..

so presumably you think the Danish cartoons should not have been published either or Theo van Gogh should not have made his film?

mike65

"Publish and be damned" its one of the cornerstones of democracy.

Mike.

Morlar

El Stuntman wrote:

so presumably you think the Danish cartoons should not have been published either or Theo van Gogh should not have made his film?

By that logic the south park boys ( Trey Parker and Matt Stone) should be for the chop too.

Zambia

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I've read Rushdie including his pretentious novels. Nowhere does he incite hatred or violence.

Thats a bit like saying I didnt kill him the Bullets and the fall did.

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

By that logic Galileo Galilei probably shouldn't have published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

I can see the piont in that piece of writing I cant see the Piont in the SV

The Corinthian wrote:

Of the question of what is acceptable and not in satire or debate is an open one and the West has frankly looked pretty hypocritical in its defense. After all, why should this be deemed acceptable or fair comment and this offensive? But that's probably OT for this thread.

I think the SV was not really itended as satire or a laugh so I dont see how it relates

Morlar

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I've read Rushdie including his pretentious novels. Nowhere does he incite hatred or violence.

Zambia232 wrote:

Thats a bit like saying I didnt kill him the Bullets and the fall did.

Wasnt it the iranians who incited the hatred and violence when they called for rushdie to be murdered ?

Zambia

El Stuntman wrote:

so presumably you think the Danish cartoons should not have been published either or Theo van Gogh should not have made his film?

I dont think they performed any great good but they where cartoons and should not be taken seriously. As for the other bloke well I think he is a bit sick to be honest. A blatant hate monger , please tell me what good he was serving by that film. He seems to be nothing more than a political porn peddler?

If something is blatantly in jest it deserves to get overlooked but thats just IMO.

Zambia

Morlar wrote:

Wasnt it the iranians who incited the hatred and violence when they called for rushdie to be murdered ?

If you cover your hand in meat juice and stick it in a wild dogs mouth, is it the dogs fault or yours that your now short a limb.

Morlar

Zambia232 wrote:

If you cover your hand in meat juice and stick it in a wild dogs mouth, is it the dogs fault or yours that your now short a limb.

So your saying islam as a collective is ok to behave like a rabid dog and no one should bat an eyelid ?

Zambia

Morlar wrote:

So your saying islam as a collective is ok to behave like a rabid dog and no one should bat an eyelid ?

No not at all, but like all peoples if you go way way out of your way to piss them off im not going to blame them for taking your arm off.

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

I can see the piont in that piece of writing I cant see the Piont in the SV

Who made you the judge of whether there is a point to any piece of writing?

I think the SV was not really itended as satire or a laugh so I dont see how it relates

It relates to the point of freedom of speech and how we define what is acceptable and what is not. I also pointed out that it was OT.

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

Who made you the judge of whether there is a point to any piece of writing?

Im sorry I thought you where asking for my opinion.

Can you tell me what purpose the book serves ,it could have been a nice wee story without these verses?

Morlar

Zambia232 wrote:

No not at all, but like all peoples if you go way way out of your way to piss them off im not going to blame them for taking your arm off.

What do you mean 'like all peoples' - no other religious faiths in the 20th or 21st century issue fatwas to those who dont comply. Were not talking about all other peoples here were talking about funnily enough islamic extremism and threatening to murder authors who you dont like. That is stone age thinking right there and has no place in the developed civilised world where ideas and expression are more important than any religons right to expect a level of respect bordering on subservience.