Did this man deserve a Knighthood??

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

Who is "we", and why do you see yourself connected to old wars and reformations or dead Europeans?

Of course I do, history is what defines the World or part of the World we live in or come from. TBH, I find whether I see myself connected to dead Europeans a rather odd question to ask seeing you, as a Muslim, are happy to see yourself connected to a dead historical figure yourself.

Every individual starts life on a blank sheet, you seem to believe in some sort of inherited position.

Actually individuals start life on both a blank sheet and inherit much of who they are. Indeed, only a fool would suggest that we are not to a great extend the product of the culture we were born to.

My point was that none of us here have much reason to grumble at British Muslims, in their own country, protesting against the Rushdie knighthood (if they even want to)

I think they have every right to protest against the Rushdie knighthood (if they want to).

Understand the difference between Muslim and Arab?

Fair point. Euroummah doesn't have the same ring though.

No culture is sacred or untouchable, lots of societies change, adapt and are turned on their heads.

Societies evolve, but that should not be confused with a radical cultural shift within that society or that they are turned on their heads.

The Corinthian

RedPlanet wrote:

So, where do you, (or anybody else) stand on the Bong Hits for Jesus situation?
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1563423/20070626/index.jhtml
It appears to me that it's OK to mess with Islam and muslim beliefs, but not Christain ones.

I raised the point of Western double standards with regard to free speech a few pages ago. Maybe you should have read the thread before posting.

Jackie laughlin

It is essential to challenge all beliefs which threaten our free society. Christian challenges have largely been seen off. Now Islam is having a go and will have to be defeated.

InFront

Corinthian being influenced by the current society is very different to associating yourself with a particular era in European history. It isn't what I'm talking about:

Europeans have fought centuries of wars, reformations and counter reformations to achieve. We have no interest in taking, what we would consider, a step backwards

They've left their Islamic countries of origin to start anew.

...btw maybe it didn't register that British usually equals 'from Britain' as opposed to 'landed there'

as a Muslim, are happy to see yourself connected to a dead historical figure

I respect Muhammad pbuh by choice - I don't actually think I inherited a position whereby I am connected to him or would say "We won X War", for example, when I did nothing of the sort. And I'm pretty sure you've played absolutely no part in any war, reformation or cultural shift yourself.

InFront

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It is essential to challenge all beliefs which threaten our free society.

It's probably necessary to challenge all beliefs. However where you say "challenge", do you mean "see off"? in which case I'd question the freedom of that society.

Christian challenges have largely been seen off. Now Islam is having a go and will have to be defeated.

All you need is some star wars music. For goodness sake Islam isn't a huge menace that grew out of the ground with the last shower of rain, it's a vehicle that some people abuse, some people use well, a religion which some agree with and some disgaree with. If it wasn't religion it would be nationalism, if it wasn't nationalism it would be videogames, if it wasn't videogames it would be rock and roll - soon, everything will have to be defeated. Even Star Wars Music.

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

Corinthian being influenced by the current society is very different to associating yourself with a particular era in European history.

My point is that I am not associating myself with any particular era in European history, but with the culmination of it. And a Muslim is no different being shaped by the historical actions of Mohammad, not to mention the centuries of war and politics that followed him.

...btw maybe it didn't register that British usually equals 'from Britain' as opposed to 'landed there'

Only if you have a chip on your shoulder. Populations have been migrating for centuries, the first generation typically finds it difficult to 'fit in' but their children and their children's children integrate completely. And neither is this assimilation simply one way, cultures are constantly evolving, changing internally and adopting external customs.

Of course, if you really are uninterested in assimilation and feel it your duty to do the reverse, then you're going to have problems. The first generation will refuse to 'fit in' and, more importantly, deny their children from doing so either. They never become part of the community they have moved into, but exist as a separate and competing one, which in turn engenders both suspicion and prejudice and escalates the divide. Where do think a lot of European antisemitism came from after all?

I respect Muhammad pbuh by choice - I don't actually think I inherited a position whereby I am connected to him or would say "We won X War", for example, when I did nothing of the sort.

What faith is your family? That religion, not simply Islam, tends to be passed on through family tradition would already shoot down your argument. Coverts, again in any religion, by comparison, those who truly choose a faith, are actually only a fraction of those in that faith.

Pakistan, for example, is not Muslim because the population spontaneously chose Islam, it's Muslim because an Arab called Muhammad bin Qasim invaded the region and brought the faith to it. So while you could well be a convert yourself, I don't take seriously your inference that it is simply a question of choice.

And I'm pretty sure you've played absolutely no part in any war, reformation or cultural shift yourself.

Just as you played absolutely no part in Muhammad's life, actions and achievements but are happy to follow the traditions laid down by him, we do the same with all those who fought the wars, took part in reformations, counter reformations, the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Botany Bay

This is unbelievable, i mean there are people on here who clearly can't comprehend the full implications of Freedom of speech. Freedom of speech or expression allows you to voice your feelings or opinions, in short you should and are allowed say what you want. If this offends someone, then they have the right to retort or argue their point. Indeed soceity as a whole will judge a persons words accordingly and may condemn the persons opinion as derogatory or hateful or insulting. Thats's fair enough but the fact remains that any person should be allowed to say whatever the hell they want, criticise, question , mock or ridicule whoever or whatever they want. Some people here think that caveats should be employed on certain subjects or material. This in itself goes against the whole principles of freedom of speech, if you think religion, which already has an unhealthy position of esteem and respect in soceity should be free from question and even ridicule then maybe your better off moving to a soceity which absolves it from any citicism or question. Perhaps Saudi Arabia or Iran, or even Alabama.

Salman Rushdie wrote a book, that's all he did. He didn't hurt or kill or injure anyone. Yet his words seem to be justification enough for him to be killed. Religion whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judaism or whatever else is based on no evidence, objectivity or rational thought. Its been shown up for it's inconsistencies and contradictions, and i refer to all three mono-Theistic religions here. It has held back rational thought and scientific inquiry, logic and reason. It should always be questioned, criticised and challenged. If some individuals want to poke fun, ridicule and take the piss with it, then fine. We live in a soceity where one has the right and freedom to express ones thoughts on an y particular matter. They don't have that right in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran. The very countries enraged by the words of a man or the pictures of a cartoonist. If you feel their sense of outrage and hurt is justified, maybe you should join them in their totalitarian paradise, ad see how well it works for you. Nothing should be free from criticism, religion especially, i think some people need to read the works of Paine and Jefferson to truly appreciate why this is.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

However where you say "challenge", do you mean "see off"? in which case I'd question the freedom of that society.

Well a society which will not see off beliefs which may be inimical to it (feg my religion is a Sacred Cow + god help anyone who slaughters it) is doomed isn't it?

Or if you prefer I can say it is destined to "evolve" into something which will probably be very far away from what it was originally...

Of course, in Ireland's case, that would be de-evolution back in direction we've already come from...

InFront

The Corinthian wrote:

I am not associating myself with any particular era in European history

Well it was pretty obvious that you are doing exactly that, you said that Europeans had fought and had reformations to poke fun at religion and "we" (you) would be taking a step backwards if "we (you) were to stop doing so. Read your own post. On what basis do you place yourself next to those involved in centuries-old wars and reformations, or feel that you have a stake in their actons to the extent that you would be seemingly wasting old wars or reformations? Waste on whose behalf? Again, I'll remind you of what you wrote

Europeans have fought centuries of wars, reformations and counter reformations to achieve. We have no interest in taking, what we would consider, a step backwards

a Muslim is no different being shaped by the historical actions of Mohammad, not to mention the centuries of war and politics that followed him.

Influenced by Muhammad pbuh, obviously, just as a European (believe it or not, there is such a thing) Muslim is influenced by Europe and wars and reformations and counter reformations. Of course, most people don't consider themselves to have a beneficial interest in a continuum of historical actions or as inheritors of war successes.

The first generation will refuse to 'fit in' and, more importantly, deny their children from doing so either. They never become part of the community they have moved into, but exist as a separate and competing one, which in turn engenders both suspicion and prejudice and escalates the divide.

You're really talking complete rubbish now. What are you basing this on, something you saw on a daytime TV Soap opera? I suggest you try living in the real world. What do you mean "never become part of the community"?, "deny their children from doing so"?
You don't even seem to be able to clear up what you're trying to say in your own head because elsewhere you say

their children and their children's children integrate completely

I'm sorry but you're really showing your ignorance with that statement. If you take a look at Muslims in Britain, if anyone it's the children of the succeeding generations who have tended to have a more difficulty relating their background to the land of their birth (Britain). I'm not saying it's a serious difficulty, but the difficulty doesn't tend to lie with the parents who arrived in the 1950s or 1960s.

Where do think a lot of European antisemitism came from after all?

Fear of difference.

What faith is your family? That religion, not simply Islam, tends to be passed on through family tradition would already shoot down your argument.

No it doesn't. They may be Muslims, but that doesn't mean I had to be. As an adult, I choose my own friends, my own life, my own career, choose my own faith. I don't see it as a right of birth, an inheritance as you seem to feel about being European. There are lots of Muslims who abandon their faith, it's a choice they make as adults.

Nobody is a six year old following his parents around forever.

So while you could well be a convert yourself, I don't take seriously your inference that it is simply a question of choice.

Why not, especially if I were a convert/ revert?

As it happens (not that it makes any real difference) I was always a Muslim. It doesn't mean choice doesn't come into it. At many times in my life (and still today) I could go out and drink beer, stop praying salah, stop calling myself a Muslim.

Just as you played absolutely no part in Muhammad's life

Exactly. But I already said that. You seem to think that retorting "well you're the same anyway" explains something.

Why you associate yourself with reformations and religious wars when you weren't around and played no part in them is anyone's guess. Admiration or respect for historical figures is one thing, actually associating yourself with their actions when they happened hundreds of years ago is bizarre.

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

Well a society which will not see off beliefs which may be inimical to it (feg my religion is a Sacred Cow + god help anyone who slaughters it) is doomed isn't it?

Sure, I'm just challenging the term "free society" in that context.

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

Well it was pretty obvious that you are doing exactly that, you said that Europeans had fought and had reformations to poke fun at religion and "we" (you) would be taking a step backwards if "we (you) were to stop doing so. Read your own post.

I’m quite aware of what I wrote and I already answered you. You’ve accused me of associating myself with a particular era of European history and if that is true then that particular era is the present one because it is the culmination of this history and not any specific episode that I associate myself with.

Just as you associate yourself with the culmination of another cultural tradition and history.

Influenced by Muhammad pbuh, obviously, just as a European (believe it or not, there is such a thing) Muslim is influenced by Europe and wars and reformations and counter reformations.

Absolutely.

Of course, most people don't consider themselves to have a beneficial interest in a continuum of historical actions or as inheritors of war successes.

Really. Tell me how do faiths spread? How did Egypt, originally pagan, then Christian then become Muslim? To deny the ongoing legacy that political and historical events have upon religious and cultural evolution of a region is really quite ridiculous.

You're really talking complete rubbish now. What are you basing this on, something you saw on a daytime TV Soap opera? I suggest you try living in the real world. What do you mean "never become part of the community"?, "deny their children from doing so"?
You don't even seem to be able to clear up what you're trying to say in your own head because elsewhere you say

I suggest you try rebutting a point rather than ranting random ad hominem attacks. You’ll be taken more seriously if you do.

Fear of difference.

In great part, yes, but nothing is ever quite that clear-cut and simple.

No it doesn't. They may be Muslims, but that doesn't mean I had to be. As an adult, I choose my own friends, my own life, my own career, choose my own faith. I don't see it as a right of birth, an inheritance as you seem to feel about being European.

"Those who believe in free will make the best puppets of all." LOL.

People tend to grow up and adopt their family’s traditions and faith. Some may also adopt from their greater environment, or become less observant, but as a rule we tend to become the shadow of our parents when we grow older.

There are lots of Muslims who abandon their faith, it's a choice they make as adults.

Many lapse, as many Christians do, but how many actually commit apostasy and embrace another faith? Some do, but given reaction to apostasy (as opposed to non-observance that will often be ignored by families) it’s hardly surprising that "lot’s" do not.

Nobody is a six year old following his parents around forever.

We don’t need to be - as the old Jesuit maxim goes "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man", and so much of what we become as adults has already been imprinted into our psyche before we even hit our teens.

Why not, especially if I were a convert/ revert?

Because we’re not basing what the world is like on you specific case, but on what is more common and unless you’re completely insane, even you would have to admit that converts make up a tiny fraction of any religion. Most inherit their religion.

Why you associate yourself with reformations and religious wars when you weren't around and played no part in them is anyone's guess. Admiration or respect for historical figures is one thing, actually associating yourself with their actions when they happened hundreds of years ago is bizarre.

Again, it is the culmination of those actions that one is associating oneself with. You are doing so as well from a different cultural perspective, but are apparently in denial about the lasting influence that similar actions have upon you.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

Sure, I'm just challenging the term "free society" in that context.

You are just playing games here I think.

The "free society" above is in a somewhat similar situation to a democracy which extends political freedoms to organise, recruit members, distribute propaganda etc to a group which believes the nation should be run by a dictator or an absolute monarch and would dismantle the democracy if they gained power.

It might be better for preserving "freedom" to have the organs of the state keep a very watchful eye on them, hinder their organisation, maybe even declare them illegal if their ideas seem to be gaining ground!:)

cavedave

An important quality of Rushdie that people seem to have forgotten is that as an spectacularly ugly bloke he managed to marry a woman way out of his league.


Chalk one up to the ugly blokes on this one


For services in giving hope to ugly men alone he deserves a knighthood