Salman Rushdie should be long dead

Salman Rushdie has every right to point out the bogus nature of the Islamic System. You can defend the Camp of Islam all you like, it just makes you more and more an enemy of freedom.

Islam and Individual Liberty cannot exist at the same time.

You sound like you are an adherent of Islam. If so, you should probably apostate and come back to your roots: the Light of Greece can be yours. Or you can continue worshipping a black rock from space.

We have the right to fight the Camp of Islam because we are defending ourselves from Jihad. More and more individuals are realizing the warlike nature of Mohammed and the system of social control he devised. It is one of the longest running scams in history and has duped billions into ceding their liberty to a bogus death cult.

Criticism of Islam is encouraged. It may help more to apostate.

reply to post by Mike_A


Well, I must say you have done an excellent job of dragging this debate off topic, in you Zeal to protect freedom of speech.

as this was never the subject of my OP it seems almost pointless to carry on this discussion.

You wilfully ignore the fact that if you try to make a public statement about Isalm, you will not be allowed to do so - try it as a social experiment and prove me wrong. Dont worry about coming under duress for it, the police will protect you, wont they?
Please let me know the venue and date!

Unfortunately my position is difficult to argue, because neither of us can supply proof of our assertion (you may well disagree), and, when i have raised a valid point, such as the government not funding mountain rescue and the RNLI, you have ignored the point, dancing around it with rhetoric.


For instance, regarding Carr:-

"She made a mistake, and the state accepted responsibility for her (see above)
Rushdie manipulated a situation cynically for personal gain"


'In your opinion.

Other people might say that Carr was a vile manipulator while Rushdie merely wanted to write a compelling story'.

Well, I only have my opinion, I don't claim to know the mind of others as you do. However, while your assertion as to opinion may be correct, in reality she told a lie to protect someone she believed innocent - would you not have done this for a loved one?
She didnt choose to become the lover of a murderer, and she would have been at risk for being his girlfriend EVEN IF SHE HAD BEEN INNOCENT, as you well know.
The fact that she was sentanced to a mere 42 months would suggest she was not a 'vile manipulator' in eyes of the court, even if this was the way she was viewed by the public (after being informed by the press)

The only relevance I can see is the demonstration of how various intstitutions can manipulate public opinion. Your assertion that the circumstances are the same is disengenuos.


Re you and your knife, well, I apologise if my exercising my rights has offended you, it wasn't my intention. However, I will defend myself and my opinion!
If you really feel that strongly about the issue, I will happily meet you so that you may (attempt) to gain satisfaction. :Op

(you see, the argument doesnt work unless I am afraid of the consequences of my actions)

BTW to Defame is to damage the reputation of, check the dictionary, no mention of persons, and think about the meaning of the ADL.

As for the LOB, well, some people will take offence at anything if they are manipulated to, but there isnt any insult in there at all as I recall, in fact the only reference to Christ is the sermon on the mount, which is true to doctrine. Please cite any insults therin that YOU know.

cont.

reply to post by Mike_A


So, in an attempt to avoid any further, unprovable or irrelevant 'opinions', let me first ask you a question.
Take a scenario where Rusdie has published the 'verses' but has not been given protection, has been refused it.
The fatwa has been issued.

What is your opinion of his actions in those circumstances?

Do you consider him a hero, for publishing despite his peril?

Or would you consider it foolhardy of him, to gamble his life?

Did he know he would be protected?

You should also know that, despite what you seem to assume, under UK law you do not have an automatic right to protection, subject to threats.

"Duty to Protect - Article 2 obligations where person at risk is not a witness
The key decision which sets out the general position is the case of Osman. The Osman family were subject to a series of threats and intimidation that eventually led to a murder. The victim was not, however, a witness but simply a member of the community whose family had been harassed by an individual. The judgment established the following:

• Not every claimed risk to life places a positive obligation on the state under Article 2.
• This would impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on authorities such as the police.
• There could be circumstances, however, where the state did have a positive obligation to protect the person’s life, but it was necessary to be able to show a real and immediate risk to that person’s life and that the authorities knew (or ought to have known) of this.
• In such cases, a failure by the state to take measures which are available to them and which might have protected the person, could be a violation of the person’s rights under Article 2."

I.E. they can pick and choose who to protect.
Difficult to argue that his life was at "real and immediate risk" for twenty years, unless you have the right connections, of course.

Heres the case that decided this to be so, from the europeon court of human rights (yes, the same one that allows the jailing of holocaust deniers). It isnt strictly relevant, I offer it as a courtesy.

tenconsultancy.co.uk...sman-v-united-kingdom-2345294-1999-1-flr-193-&catid=55:cases&Itemid= 57

reply to post by Mike_A


Regarding 'freedom of speech', yes its a right, though there are limitations on how you are allowed to exercise it.
But as you see above there is no automatic mandate to protect you from the consequences of doing so.


Now, having read and digested the above it should become obvious that this mans actions were directed by his ABUSE of the criminal justice system, which is not in place to protect suicidal trouble makers, and by his confidence in the connections and privalige he made use of the shield him from his actions.

Of course you will not agree, but I think you will be forced to admit that your stance regarding an automatic right to protection, whether morally correct or not, is not the view of HMG, and that actually, my point regarding the ultimate cost of such irresponsibility, is bourne out by

(sorry for re-posting but its important!)

• Not every claimed risk to life places a positive obligation on the state under Article 2.
• This would impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on authorities such as the police.

Which is exactly my point, and totally negates your argument that we all have a right to protection!

Well, I must say you have done an excellent job of dragging this debate off topic, in you Zeal to protect freedom of speech.

as this was never the subject of my OP it seems almost pointless to carry on this discussion.

Please don’t get snippy, I am only responding to what you write. Your OP very much was concerned with freedom of speech, you said;

“I'm all for free speech, but if you say what you think and upset someone so bad they want to kill you, well, tough, why the hell should I have to pay to protect you?”

I am responding to this, the claim that Rushdie received protection because of his connections and the implications of these two views.

You wilfully ignore the fact that if you try to make a public statement about Isalm, you will not be allowed to do so

So how does the BNP exist, the English Defence League, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Jack Straw etc; they have all made negative statements about Islam or aspects of Islam in public.

when i have raised a valid point, such as the government not funding mountain rescue and the RNLI, you have ignored the point, dancing around it with rhetoric.

No I didn’t, I pointed out that the RAF is responsible for mountain rescue. I have not claimed that charitable organisations do not also perform this and other roles and it has nothing to do with my point. What I was trying to get across was the fact that in some cases an individual cannot cope with the consequences of their own actions alone yet this fact does not mean their actions were wrong or that they should be left to deal with it on their own.

For instance, regarding Carr:-

"She made a mistake, and the state accepted responsibility for her (see above)
Rushdie manipulated a situation cynically for personal gain"


'In your opinion.

Other people might say that Carr was a vile manipulator while Rushdie merely wanted to write a compelling story'.

Well, I only have my opinion, I don't claim to know the mind of others as you do. However, while your assertion as to opinion may be correct, in reality she told a lie to protect someone she believed innocent - would you not have done this for a loved one?
She didnt choose to become the lover of a murderer, and she would have been at risk for being his girlfriend EVEN IF SHE HAD BEEN INNOCENT, as you well know.
The fact that she was sentanced to a mere 42 months would suggest she was not a 'vile manipulator' in eyes of the court, even if this was the way she was viewed by the public (after being informed by the press)

The only relevance I can see is the demonstration of how various intstitutions can manipulate public opinion. Your assertion that the circumstances are the same is disengenuos.

So in what way is this different to Rushdie?

Whether he set out to offend or not he would still have been at risk just as Carr would have been at risk if she hadn’t set out to lie.

The issue of public manipulation is further reason to ensure people are protected regardless of whether or not they offend people. It is only your opinion that Rushdie set out to offend and you reject any possibility that he did not.

Re you and your knife, well, I apologise if my exercising my rights has offended you, it wasn't my intention.

Exactly, yet you seem to know that it was Rushdie’s intention to offend Muslims. The fact is someone is almost guaranteed to be offended by most things that can be said; that doesn’t mean people should stop talking about their opinions and beliefs just because these people might get violent.

However, I will defend myself and my opinion!
If you really feel that strongly about the issue, I will happily meet you so that you may (attempt) to gain satisfaction. :Op

But would you if there were a few thousand wanting to hurt you? I doubt it.

(you see, the argument doesnt work unless I am afraid of the consequences of my actions)

And if you claim that you wouldn’t be afraid if hundreds of people sent you death threats, burnt effigies of you in the street and a nation put a bounty on your head, I’d call you a liar.

BTW to Defame is to damage the reputation of, check the dictionary, no mention of persons, and think about the meaning of the ADL.

Check the law.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for the LOB, well, some people will take offence at anything if they are manipulated to, but there isnt any insult in there at all as I recall

That’s the point! In your opinion there was nothing insulting, the creators claim there was no intent to cause offence yet offence was still taken.

In my and other people’s opinion the Satanic Verses were not insulting, Rushdie claims there was no intent to insult yet people still took offence.

When presenting a view, belief, story or whatever you cannot completely ensure that no one will take offense. If someone does it should not be the fault of the creator if they then decide to get violent, thus the freedom of expression must be guaranteed against this possibility. In other words the state must protect those who are threatened with violence.

So, in an attempt to avoid any further, unprovable or irrelevant 'opinions', let me first ask you a question.
Take a scenario where Rusdie has published the 'verses' but has not been given protection, has been refused it.
The fatwa has been issued.

What is your opinion of his actions in those circumstances?

Do you consider him a hero, for publishing despite his peril?

Or would you consider it foolhardy of him, to gamble his life?

I have no opinion beyond that which I have already stated, he had the right to do it.

He’s neither a hero nor foolhardy.

Did he know he would be protected?

I don’t know, do you?

Why does it matter?

You should also know that, despite what you seem to assume, under UK law you do not have an automatic right to protection, subject to threats.

As the link states;

“• Not every claimed risk to life places a positive obligation on the state under Article 2.
• This would impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on authorities such as the police.
• There could be circumstances, however, where the state did have a positive obligation to protect the person’s life, but it was necessary to be able to show a real and immediate risk to that person’s life and that the authorities knew (or ought to have known) of this.
• In such cases, a failure by the state to take measures which are available to them and which might have protected the person, could be a violation of the person’s rights under Article 2.”

What this means is that you can’t just go to the police and say “I’m being threatened” and expect 24hr security. However if you have proof and the police know of a threat they must take all measures available to them to protect you.

This does not say that the police can pick and choose who they protect.

Difficult to argue that his life was at "real and immediate risk" for twenty years, unless you have the right connections, of course.

Or there is a fatwa against you that puts a bounty on your head for that period of time.

Which is exactly my point, and totally negates your argument that we all have a right to protection!

No because you have ignored the second two points.

The very first section of that links states;

“ Where the state authorities (which will usually be the police, but could also include the Prison Service and the Security Services) knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an individual, the state has a positive obligation under Article 2 to take measures to protect that individual.”

If the authorities know of a real threat then they are obligated to protect the individual.

It goes on to quote the ECHR as saying

“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. ”

In the second link to the Osman case abstract it relays the court’s ruling in more detail;

“ The state was not in breach of its positive obligation to take preventative measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from another, as the requirement that the police knew or ought to have known that there was a real and immediate threat to O and F's lives from P was not met, since none of the incidents prior to the shootings were life-threatening, there was no proof that P was responsible for those acts and there was no evidence that P was mentally ill or prone to violence”

In summary if the police know of a real threat then they are obliged to protect the individual as I have said in previous posts. They are not obligated in cases where a threat cannot be identified which is not the case in regards to Rushdie or the examples I gave.

This idea that people do not have the right to protection against violence or that Rushdie was protected because of his connection is demonstrably not true.


Edit to add –

Could you respond to the question I posed in an earlier post.

If the BNP began a violent campaign against a specific Mosque because those who attend wear traditional Islamic dress you would be of the opinion that it is the Muslims who should change the way they dress rather than being afforded protection by the state?

Bearing in mind I have already explained why this is relevant.


[edit on 17-2-2010 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A


Your OP very much was concerned with freedom of speech, you said;

“I'm all for free speech, but if you say what you think and upset someone so bad they want to kill you, well, tough, why the hell should I have to pay to protect you?”

Exactly – why should the taxpayer have to pay for it, not should we allow his freedom of speech – you are trying to set your own agenda. I will happily debate the topic with you, but not in this thread.



So how does the BNP exist, the English Defence League, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Jack Straw etc; they have all made negative statements about Islam or aspects of Islam in public.

I’m not talking about them, I’m challenging you as an individual to make a public statement, concerning Islam. If you are so sure of your rights, and the ability of the authorities to protect rather than arrest you when you exercise them, this should present no problem whatsoever.


When I have raised a valid point, such as the government not funding mountain rescue and the RNLI, you have ignored the point, dancing around it with rhetoric.

No I didn’t, I pointed out that the RAF is responsible for mountain rescue.


They sometimes assist, they are NOT responsible


I have not claimed that charitable organisations do not also perform this and other roles and it has nothing to do with my point.

Yes it does, if HMG will not pay for these life saving measures, why pay for Rushdie?


What I was trying to get across was the fact that in some cases an individual cannot cope with the consequences of their own actions alone yet this fact does not mean their actions were wrong or that they should be left to deal with it on their own.

Then why does HMG not negotiate for British hostages?
Much more relevant than you spurious comparisons!


For instance, regarding Carr:-

"She made a mistake, and the state accepted responsibility for her (see above)
Rushdie manipulated a situation cynically for personal gain"


So in what way is this different to Rushdie?
Very simple - He had a choice in the situation he put himself into


Whether he set out to offend or not he would still have been at risk just as Carr would have been at risk if she hadn’t set out to lie.
Nevertheless he had a choice!


The issue of public manipulation is further reason to ensure people are protected regardless of whether or not they offend people. It is only your opinion that Rushdie set out to offend and you reject any possibility that he did not.
I do not reject the possibility, I find it difficult to credit that a university educated man could be that naive.



However, I will defend myself and my opinion!
If you really feel that strongly about the issue, I will happily meet you so that you may (attempt) to gain satisfaction. :Op


But would you if there were a few thousand wanting to hurt you? I doubt it.


There aren’t, because I haven’t made an inflammatory statement calculated to offend thousands, I wouldn’t be stupid enough to set out to do such a thing despite the paucity of my intellect in comparison to SR.
Furthermore, I haven’t even offended you, you merely choose to take issue with my stance and resort to extremes to make a case.



And if you claim that you wouldn’t be afraid if hundreds of people sent you death threats, burnt effigies of you in the street and a nation put a bounty on your head, I’d call you a liar.
I would be terrified, and would regret the stupidity of my actions to arrive at such a position



BTW to Defame is to damage the reputation of, check the dictionary, no mention of persons, and think about the meaning of the ADL.



Check the law.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia isn’t a reliable resource, it isn’t an authority on, or repository of, the law. Not to be trusted.
The OED definition is good enough for me.


As for the LOB, well, some people will take offence at anything .

That’s the point! In your opinion there was nothing insulting, the creators claim there was no intent to cause offence yet offence was still taken.

Not ‘in my opinion’ at all – I asked you to cite one insult to Christianity in the film, you answer with rhetoric!
Feeling insulted and being insulted aren’t the same thing!
Not relevant anyway!



In my and other people’s opinion the Satanic Verses were not insulting, Rushdie claims there was no intent to insult yet people still took offence.
‘Claims’ being the operative – unacceptable that he could not forsee.
Again you speak for ‘other people’
And who cares? I wasn’t offended either.
So why should he need protecting



When presenting a view, belief, story or whatever you cannot completely ensure that no one will take offense. If someone does it should not be the fault of the creator if they then decide to get violent, thus the freedom of expression must be guaranteed against this possibility. In other words the state must protect those who are threatened with violence.
No, the state ‘must’ not do anything, it has a choice!


So, in an attempt to avoid any further, unprovable or irrelevant 'opinions', let me first ask you a question.
Take a scenario where Rusdie has published the 'verses' but has not been given protection, has been refused it.
The fatwa has been issued.

What is your opinion of his actions in those circumstances?

Do you consider him a hero, for publishing despite his peril?

Or would you consider it foolhardy of him, to gamble his life?



I have no opinion beyond that which I have already stated, he had the right to do it.

Strange, when you seem to know everybody else’s opinion on virtually every other aspect of this matter, yet you don’t have an opinion as to the wisdom of his actions?
That seems evasive at best.



He’s neither a hero nor foolhardy.
Did he know he would be protected

I don’t know, do you?

Why does it matter?

Yes, it does - in case you missed it, its crucial to my original point!


.
• There could be circumstances, however, where the state did have a positive obligation to protect the person’s life, but it was necessary to be able to show a real and immediate risk to that person’s life and that the authorities knew (or ought to have known) of this.
• In such cases, a failure by the state to take measures which are available to them and which might have protected the person, could be a violation of the person’s rights under Article 2.”

reply to post by Mike_A


What this means is that you can’t just go to the police and say “I’m being threatened” and expect 24hr security. However if you have proof and the police know of a threat they must take all measures available to them to protect you.

This does not say that the police can pick and choose who they protect.
Difficult to argue that his life was at "real and immediate risk" for twenty years, unless you have the right connections, of course.





Or there is a fatwa against you that puts a bounty on your head for that period of time.

"necessary to be able to show a real and immediate risk to that person’s life"
Citation for one incident of physical threat to his person whilst in the uk?




The very first section of that links states;

“ Where the state authorities (which will usually be the police, but could also include the Prison Service and the Security Services) knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an individual, the state has a positive obligation under Article 2 to take measures to protect that individual.”

If the authorities know of a real threat then they are obligated to protect the individual.

No, it says ‘real and immediate’! Please cite an example of an attempt on his life on UK soil!




In summary if the police know of a real threat then they are obliged to protect the individual as I have said in previous posts. They are not obligated in cases where a threat cannot be identified which is not the case in regards to Rushdie or the examples I gave.

This idea that people do not have the right to protection against violence or that Rushdie was protected because of his connection is demonstrably not true.

How could the police ‘know’ that there was a genuine threat against Rushdie – remember we are considering a twenty year period.
How can you demonstrate that the string pulling you deny is untrue – evidence or your opinion again?




Could you respond to the question I posed in an earlier post.

If the BNP began a violent campaign against a specific Mosque because those who attend wear traditional Islamic dress you would be of the opinion that it is the Muslims who should change the way they dress rather than being afforded protection by the state?

Bearing in mind I have already explained why this is relevant.


Non Relevant fiction! How is it relevant? It has nothing to do with the OP!
You are now telling me what my opinion would be?
I am neither a supporter of the BNP nor am I Muslim, so why should I even have an opinion?

Originally posted by Icerider
Though I appreciate what your saying, I feel there is more to this than meets the eye, and I bet the establishment wouldn't step in to protect just anyone in these circumstances, let alone give them a knighthood.

Id like to know why he is regarded as so special, ... [etc]

Just to help you understand, as you are a taxpayer (and all that).

1. Sir Rushdie is a well respected and proficient Booker Prize winning author. He was knighted recently for his services to literature. There’s nothing wrong with that. Go on, buy one of his books and give it a go – they are rather good.

2. He wrote a book (the Satanic Verses) which our dear old tolerant friends in Iran took umbrage over and that nice chap Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa and the rest is history. Because his life was in jeopardy he has had police bodyguards. There was at least one failed attempt on his life by a Hezbollah activist who sadly died in the attempt (shame). Good book, by the way and probably not read by Khomeini, the Hezbollah activist (RIP) or any of the book burning mob who got all shook up and upset.

3. Police protection is used to protect people who are under threat. Obviously some senior politicians and public figures, witnesses to crimes where there are obvious threats and other criteria which I am sure could be added to. Sir Rushdie is fairly unique but was clearly under mortal threat and therefore required protection.

Hope that helps

Regards

I am neither a supporter of the BNP nor am I Muslim, so why should I even have an opinion?

You’re not a Booker Prize winning author either but you still have an opinion on Rushdie.

This example is very relevant as I have explained before, if you don’t want to pay for Rushdie’s protection because he offended some extremist Muslims then how can you support protecting the people in my example from extremist white supremacists?

I don’t have the time to reply to you point for point if you’re just going to dismiss anything I say any difficult question as irrelevant.

reply to post by paraphi


1. Sir Rushdie is a well respected and proficient Booker Prize winning author. He was knighted recently for his services to literature. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Then why could he not afford to pay for his own protection?[/color=Green]

Go on, buy one of his books and give it a go – they are rather good.

Irrelevant, subjective argument - I have read his work, I found it whimsical and puerile, but neither of our opinions makes a difference to the OP.

2. He wrote a book (the Satanic Verses) which our dear old tolerant friends in Iran took umbrage over and that nice chap Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa and the rest is history.

Oh good, a history lesson, I didn't know this already!


Because his life was in jeopardy he has had police bodyguards. There was at least one failed attempt on his life by a Hezbollah activist who sadly died in the attempt (shame).

Unproven speculation

Good book,

Subjective, irrelevent.

by the way and probably not read by Khomeini, the Hezbollah activist (RIP) or any of the book burning mob who got all shook up and upset.

Maybe, Maybe not - the title suggests the koran to have been written by the devil, that alone was enough to offend

3. Police protection is used to protect people who are under threat.
Sometimes, at HMG's discretion


Obviously some senior politicians and public figures, witnesses to crimes where there are obvious threats and other criteria which I am sure could be added to.

Sorry? Your point here is?

Sir Rushdie is fairly unique
No argument there, though we may differ on the nature of his uniqueness

but was clearly under mortal threat and therefore required protection.

really? For twenty years? Please make a citation proving this to be the case, or showing how that was determined by the authorities?


If you are seriously intending to take part in a discussion (AND ALL THAT) maybe you should consider reading the OP, and then actually address the issues raised, rather than stating your quite obviously self satisfied opinion that 'this is how it is'. I posed what I feel are valid questions - you addressed none of them, so why bother!


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Icerider]

Originally posted by Mike_A

I am neither a supporter of the BNP nor am I Muslim, so why should I even have an opinion?

"You’re not a Booker Prize winning author either"

And your evidence of this?

"but you still have an opinion on Rushdie."

NO I DO NOT! My QUESTIONS are about the protection he received, the expense incurred, and the comparative ease with which HMG ignores Brits in distress under other circumstances. IF I have an opinion on Rusdie, it isn't relevant.

"This example is very relevant as I have explained before, if you don’t want to pay for Rushdie’s protection because he offended some extremist Muslims then how can you support protecting the people in my example from extremist white supremacists?"

Now you've re-worded your question it makes a little more sense.
I am not arguing that innocent parties should not be protected from a real and immediate threat of violence, I am asking for how long and at what cost a guilty party should be protected - and yes, he is guilty, of giving offense to the Islamic community, willfully, not merely by being a Muslim.
Theres a world of difference between the two cases.

So, having answered your question, I still do not see the relevance

Would you now answer mine, regarding the wisdom of his actions?

What about my challenge, to make a statement in public, about Islam, without getting arrested? - That's relevant, and you know it - the Police would arrest you for your own safety, not protect you and your 'freedom of speech"

Can you to deny this would be the case?

"I don’t have the time to reply to you point for point if you’re just going to dismiss anything I say any difficult question as irrelevant."

I haven't dismissed anything as irrelevant without demonstrating why I feel this is the case, but as you insist on introducing 'opinons' and making statements that are clearly unsupportable it becomes difficult to avoid.

Perhaps if you addressed the issues, it would help matters. I have never denied the principal of free speech, nor have I denied his entitlement to protection. I am questioning whether, under the circumstances HE created, it is a luxury we can afford to extend, when HMG will not intercede for British citizens taken hostage (although this is a modern phenomena).

Read some biography on Rushdie - this was not the first time he gave offence, to aid booksales or for whatever reason.

"Daniel Pipes said of Rushdie:

Rushdie is a disaffected intellectual who criticizes or makes fun of nearly everything. One book attacks the Gandhis and modern India; another reviles the leadership in Pakistan; a third takes on American foreign policy; the fourth one blasts fundamentalist Islam and Britain. The assault comes easily ..."

"His second book Midnight's Children angered Indira Gandhi because it seemed to suggest "that Mrs. Gandhi was responsible for the death of her husband through neglect."


Actually, go look for yourself, if you havent already

en.wikipedia.org...

Does he ever learn? The mans obviously a f@#wit - In my opinion, of course. And yes, its the wiki, but the sources and citations are all there - I checked them!

As for your 'most people support him and his work' argument

"We understand that the book itself has been found deeply offensive by people of the Muslim faith. It is a book that is offensive in many other ways as well. We can understand why it could be criticized. The British Government, the British people, do not have any affection for the book. The book is extremely critical, rude about us. It compares Britain with Hitler's Germany. We do not like that any more than the people of the Muslim faith like the attacks on their faith contained in the book. So we are not cosponsoring the book. What we are sponsoring is the right of people to speak freely, to publish freely."

Geoffrey Howe


"I would like to put on record that the British Government well recognizes the hurt and distress that this book has caused, and we want to emphasize that because it was published in Britain, the British Government had nothing to do with and is not associated with it in any way.... What is surely the best way forward is to say that the book is offensive to Islam, that Islam is far stronger than a book by a writer of this kind."

William Waldegrave


Not quite as well loved as you claim, Eh?

In fact, if he had published it in 1943, we would have hung him ourselves!


Rushdie's apology

"profoundly (for) the distress the publication has occasioned to the sincere followers of Islam. Living as we do in a world of many faiths, this experience has served to remind us that we must all be conscious of the sensibilities of others"

After publication, after the fatwa, after the money starts rolling in! This is a trite, cynical statement from a man who cried wolf once to often.

"Although British bookseller W.H. Smith sold "a mere hundred copies a week of the book in mid-January 1989," it "flew off the shelves" following the fatwa."

A great author?

"In 1990, in the "hope that it would reduce the threat of Muslims acting on the fatwa to kill him," he issued a statement in which he claimed "he had renewed his Muslim faith, had repudiated the attacks on Islam in his novel and was committed to working for better understanding of the religion across the world."

"However, Rushdie later said that he was only 'pretending'."

What a f@#wit!


Oh, fair enough, you give up Mike, I don't blame you, the position becomes more and more untenable the more you know about the guy.


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Icerider]

Once again:

Try writing a book that in any way insults the "chosen ones". Go ahead, I dare ya. See how much protection you get. Even if the book is stupid and obviously meaningless, you will get ####ed.

Try writing a book questioning the "chosen ones" self named "holocaust". See how much protection you get, you hypocrites.

They are so protected, I can't even name them here for fear of being banned or worse.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by CaptChaos]

reply to post by Icerider

"but you still have an opinion on Rushdie."

NO I DO NOT!

From your OP:

“Rushdie should have been thrown to the wolves he baited, not cosseted and protected by the UK.”

You had an opinion.

There’s no point in continuing this if you are going to continually change your position. I think we’re best agreeing to disagree.


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A


That's not an opinion about him, its an opinion on how he should have been treated in light of his actions.

Your splitting hairs, but as I said, your position has become untenable, so you need an excuse to withdraw.

Obviously you aren't able to address the points I have made


Fine, thank you for your time, I have learnt a great deal from our discussion.

reply to post by Icerider


Ikrider, you posed some questions and I answered them in turn. If you have already settled on the answers yourself then why did you pose the questions?

I won’t counter each of your points from your anal breakdown of my post as that would just encourage your triviality, but I will remark on the failed assassination attempt which you state as “unproven speculation”.

Although I don’t think the British Authorities have ever publically admitted it, the consensus is that the attempt in early August 1989 was a genuine attempt targeted at the author. Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh was sadly prematurely martyred when the book-bomb he was preparing with RDX explosives went bang and blew out two floors of a London hotel. It was claimed by the Mujahidin of Islam, who said he died preparing an attack "on the apostate Rushdie". The kindly fellows in Tehran put up a shrine with the inscription "Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh... Martyred in London, August 3, 1989. The first martyr to die on a mission to kill Salman Rushdie."

Some guy (whose name escapes me) testified before the US Congress that it was a Hezbollah attempt to assassinate Rushdie. Hezbollah referred to the assassination attempt during the Danish Cartoon controversy. Hezbollah is very closely affiliated with Iran and its establishment was inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini who (by strange coincidence) was the nut-job who issued the fatwa!

Plus, the title the Satanic Verses was not (as you state) meant to suggest the Qur’an was written by the Devil. The Satanic Verses are in fact a reference to a small number of verses said to have been spoken by Muhammad which have Pagan references.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Firstly thank you for the insults - a last resort or just a refuge for the incompetent?

No, you wont counter my points because you cant - they are valid and your attack was poorly concieved!

The ONLY person to state, 'officially' that the incident was lightly to be connected to a POSSIBLE assassination attempt was James Phillips that was the name you were grasping for - and he did soon behalf of the Heritage foundation, of which he was a member

The heritage foundation is a AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.
Quite how that organisation came to that opinion I have yet to discover, as no evidence seems to have been offered in support of his statement. Of course it doesn't need pointing out that this is not an organisation without an agenda, does it?


As for you assertion regarding the book, in total, being offensive -


"The exact term "Satanic verses" is not found in Tabari. Tabari says: "Satan threw [something] into his formulation, and these verses were revealed." Admittedly, this is close in spirit to "Satanic verses," but it is not the same. The term "Satanic verses" is an English one, devised by orientalists. When rendered into Arabic, the phrase becomes Al-Ayat ash-Shaytaniya, using a word for "verses" (ayat) which refers specifically to the verses of the Qur'an. Back-translated to English, therefore, the Arabic title would be "The Qur'an's Satanic Verses." And, with just a touch of imagination, that is easily rendered as "The Qur'anic Verses Were Written By Satan," or even, "The Qur'an Was Written By Satan"

Your dinners ready.
I believe mustard helps with the taste of crow!

reply to post by Icerider

I am not sure I insulted you in act or intent, although I appreciate that by making such an accusation you are hoping to close down the discussion because you cannot refute that Mazeh has been heralded as a martyr for his failed assassination attempt. Clearly, if he had succeeded you would have been chuffed to bits as the taxpayer would not have needed to protect him.

The fact that someone was persuaded to attempt to assassinate Sir Rushdie reinforces the necessity to protect him because words have been translated into action. The protection (and associated costs) which you clearly have a strong disagreement with was posed in your OP in a “questioning way”. Clearly, you have revealed that you have an entrenched position regarding Sir Rushdie and any form of rational discourse to highlight that he is in fact a victim is pointless.

I suggest you read the book The Satanic Verses and then you will be in a better position to hold an opinion as to whether it is offensive and deserved the reaction it got.

Regards

reply to post by Icerider


Just so you know, there was another man who received a fatwa against him at the same time, from the same Imam. His name was Rashad Khalifa.

His fatwa was given because he released an English translation of the Quran in which he declared that 2 of the verses are false, so he removed them.

He was stabed 39 times and attempted to be set alight in 1990, outside of his Masjid in Phoenix, AZ. Finally 19 years later a man was convicted, it was one of Rashad's students who had traveled to AZ to infiltrate his masjid until he had an opportunity to murder him. Then he left the country immediately.

en.wikipedia.org...

He didn't get protection like Salman.



[edit on 18-2-2010 by seattletruth]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by seattletruth]

reply to post by paraphi


"As you are a tax payer (and all that)" - i.e. I am, in your opinion, being boorish

"Ikrider" - just a typo, then?

"Anal breakdown" - I thought I dissecting your statements, one fallacy at a time

All insulting terms.


I am against violent acts against innocent people. If Rushdie had chosen to leave the country and pay for his own security then I would not been interested in his well being. By involving both the nation and its security forces he unnecessarily put other peoples lives at risk.

I hadn't even considered my position regarding him until a couple of days ago, and once this debate has finished I'll no longer be interested in the subject.
Accusing me of an 'entrenched position' because I won't change my point of view is a defeatist attitude. There have been many victims of this debacle, his family included, but I fail to see how the instigator can be regarded as a victim.

If you had read the thread, you would be aware that I have read the book, and I distinctly remember telling you I found it whimsical and puerile. I cannot judge how offensive it is to a Muslim reader, but I know that it was offensive to Britain her people.

In actual fact the reaction it got was the one it deserved - very few copies purchased after it was realised that it wasn't as salacious as people were hoping

I have also read his previous novel, which was inflammatory in nature, and attacked the United States - although not inflammatory enough to achieve the sales he desired, hence the follow up.

Booker prize winner?

One Booker forum member :-


" Most of the books seem to have a common theme. They are generally making some political comment about the terrible British treating people in the old empire so very badly."

"Books should be judged on merit, not subject to the narrow political views of the very biased judges. Perhaps we could have some judges who are not left wing in their political leanings and then we might get a more balanced view.
"The Booker prize is increasingly seen as irrelevant in the world of book readers and book buyers such as myself. If it is not to become a total laughing stock, then some updating is urgently needed. We need real books that are likely to be read by real people. If you think I am being unfair or unrealistic, then I say look at the book sales. Surely the booker of bookers should be at the top of the best sellers list. Midnights children is not even in the top twenty in the UK. No one is interested."

T.Pratchett - 60 million books sold

J.K.Rowling - 400 million books sold

Beatrix potter - 50 million books sold.

Salamn Rushdie? Well, I can't find a figure - it appears that after 12 publications his sales figures are insignificant, certainly not reaching the 10 million mark.

As a 'selling' author he is virtually an unknown - his fame is predicated on
his infamy, a fact that I am sure he is well aware of.