quote:

---

The award of a knighthood to the author Salman Rushdie justifies suicide attacks, a Pakistani government minister said today.

"This is an occasion for the 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, told the Pakistani parliament in Islamabad. "The west is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and withdraws the 'sir' title."

After his comments were reported on local news stations, Mr ul-Haq told MPs that his aim had been to look into the root causes of terrorism.

The comments follow other condemnation of the award for Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses provoked worldwide protests over allegations that it insulted Islam.

He received the knighthood for services to literature in the Queen's birthday honours list published on Saturday.

Earlier today Pakistani MPs demanded Britain withdraw Rushdie's knighthood.

A government-backed resolution condemning the author's knighthood was passed unanimously by the lower house of the Pakistani parliament amid angry protests across the country.

---

quote:

---

"The west is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and withdraws the 'sir' title."

---

:\

quote:

---

But this was clearly a deliberate attempt at provocation by Tony Blair, a parting shot -Khimia

---

A provocation indeed. Facing the growing "Yamamah" scandal that shows the UK (Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair) aiding and abetting corruption in a "moderate", "friend of the West" regime, Tony Blair had to find something to provoke "islamists" whose discourse to the effect that the West is not bringing "democracy" but rather corruption to Muslim lands seems to get some vondication with the scandal.

The scandal features the saudi Prince Bandar, the West's darling "moderate" and his $2 billion kickback from the UK for arms deal. Bandar is the former ambassador of Saudi Arabia in WWashington (for 20 years), the one who arranged for the Ben Laden Family to flee the USA when no airplane was allowed to fly.. Bush's close friend.

quote:

---

The U.K. Guardian newspaper and BBC recently revealed that Bandar personally received over $2 billion US in "marketing fees" from the British defence firm BAE as part of the huge, 1985 al-Yamamah arms deal. Al-Yammah means dove in Arabic.

For the Saudi royals, Britain's outgoing PM Tony Blair, and Washington, the "dove" has become a big albatross.

During the 1980s, Saudi Arabia sought modern U.S. warplanes. But the U.S. pro-Israel lobby blocked the sale. The Reagan administration advised the Saudis to buy their warplanes from Britain.

PM Margaret Thatcher was only too happy have BAE sell the Saudis 120 Tornado strike aircraft, Hawk trainers, military equipment, and lucrative training and maintenance programs worth some $90 billion and 100,000 British jobs.

(...) Thatcher ordered mandatory kickbacks that form part of all arms deals with Arab states be hidden from public gaze. They remained so until recent years when British and American government investigators began questioning secret, multi-million dollar payments routed from the U.K. to the Riggs Bank in Washington, and then to the pockets of Saudi's Prince Charming.

When Britain's Serious Fraud Office began probing BAE's secret payoffs to Bandar, Tony Blair sanctimoniously ordered the investigation shut down for "national security" reasons. Blair was trying to sell the Saudis BAE's new, high-tech Eurofighter. He blocked similar investigations by OECD, the international anti-bribery watchdog agency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So do you approve or disapprove of the "fatwa" against Salman Rushdie?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
It is perfectly possible to disapprove of the fatwa and still believe that Blair did this as an intentional provocation

---

If knighting a fiction writer provoked christians (for example maybe Philip Pullman) I would say that they will have to learn to deal with it. I say the same thing about Muslims. The Fatwa against Rushdie for the Satanic Verses was beyond ridiculous, so was the reaction to the muslim cartoons, same as any reaction to this knighthood. I don't see why people should walk on eggshells in fear that they might offend fundamentalist nutcases.

Because of their fear of offending fundamentalists most public figures have avoiding being seen with Rushdie over the years. I am no fan of knighthood or honorary titles, but Rushdie has probably accomplished more than most people who have been knighted (he won the "booker of bookers" for best book in a quarter century with Midnight's children).

quote:

---

So do you approve or disapprove of the "fatwa" against Salman Rushdie? -Stockholm

---

I condemn Iran's Fatwa against Salman Rushdie (though I believe the guy is a rude scumbag) as well as Alan Dershowitz and DePaul's University's fatwa against Norman Finkelstein.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bohajal:

I condemn Iran's Fatwa against Salman Rushdie (though I believe the guy is a rude scumbag) as well as Alan Dershowitz and DePaul's University's fatwa against Norman Finkelstein.

I know your position on the former. Do you approve of the latter ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Do you know what a fatwa is?

---

According to [/URL]Wikipedia it's:

quote:

---

considered opinion in Islam made by a mufti, a scholar capable of issuing judgments on Sharia (Islamic law). Usually a fatwa is issued at the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is unclear.

---

ETA:

However, as stated it is an
opinion and there is quite a variety of opinion between the fundamentalist oppressive fringe Muslims and moderate progressive Muslims:
Fatwa against Terror

But, I've never heard the term "fatwa" applied to a secular institution. It's purely religious, specifically related to Islam. Perhaps any Muslim babblers could further enlighten me?

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: EmmaG ]

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: EmmaG ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bohajal:
It is obvious to me that you believed that fatwa is a "call for murder". Now that you have found out that it does not mean that:

do you agree with Alan Dershowitz and DePaul University's fatwa against Norman Finkelstein ?

---

Read my above post. No, I dont' believe it's a call to murder, as pointed out by CAIR's fatwa against murder. There are fatwas calling for Salmon Rushdie dead and there are fatwas declaring that killing anyone is un-Islamic.

quote:

---

But, I've never heard the term "fatwa" applied to a secular institution. It's purely religious, specifically related to Islam. Perhaps any Muslim babblers could further enlighten me? -EmmaG

---

It is a figure of speech, EmmaG, a figure of speech.

I hope that when you read somewhere about "Mullah" Jerry Falwell, for example, you do not believe that he was really a Mullah.

Salman Rushdie was punished for expressing himself. I condemn that.

Norman Finkelstein was punished for expressing himself. I condemn that.

I know your positions on the former, What are your positions on the latter ?

Edited for spelling

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: bohajal ]

Universities have a right to grant or not grant tenure to people as they see fit. If someone wants to start a campaign to prevent Alan Dershowitz from getting tenure because of what he has written - all the more power to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
It is perfectly possible to disapprove of the fatwa and still believe that Blair did this as an intentional provocation

---

You are right. And that is exactly my position.
The "Yamamah" scandal is not only exposing Blair (and the UK's) hypocrisy about "bringing democracy and good government" to Muslim lands -when they are encouraging corruption- but also comes as a vindication to the "enemy" they are fighting, the so-called islamists (mostly a derogatory expression for those resisting colonialism).

Salman Rushdie's knighthood should be taken at face value - as a declaration of the civilized world's revulsion at religious freaks who try to trample on freedom of expression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Does anyone here believe that Salman Rushdie deserves knighthood? I'm not sure what qualifies one as a knight these days, but I personally feel Rushdie's bona fides are questionable at best. Perhaps his reputation is different in Britain, but the timing of this announcement is certainly suspect.

---

Well, they did giv it to many celebrities.

Tom Jones, Paul McCartney, Elton John, Mick Jagger...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:

That said, while my understanding of Islam is certainly limited, I have never truly understood what is so reprehensible to Muslims about Verses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
... while my understanding of Islam is certainly limited, I have never truly understood what is so reprehensible to Muslims about Verses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Universities have a right to grant or not grant tenure to people as they see fit. If someone wants to start a campaign to prevent Alan Dershowitz from getting tenure because of what he has written - all the more power to them.

---

FYI Dershowitz already has tenure at Harvard.

quote:

---

That said, while my understanding of Islam is certainly limited, I have never truly understood what is so reprehensible to Muslims about Verses. Catchfire

---

As marzo has explained. Plus the fact of depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a pimp.

In any other society, there are people who are more sensitive than others.

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: bohajal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
. . . and still believe that Blair did this as an intentional provocation...possibly to get revenge on his successor, Gordon Brown, by forcing HIM into the Iran was Blair wasn't able to get Britain into himself.

---

quote:

---

In any other society, there are people who are more sensitive than others.

---

When that "sensitivity" turns into death threats - it is unacceptable.

Threatening to murder someone for writing something you don't like is evil - pure and simple.

If people don't like the Satanic Verses all they have to do is refuse to read it. As it is, the only thing that was accomplished by this ridiculous death threat (apart from ruining Salman Rushdie's life) was that it catapulted the book to the top of every international best sellers list and resulted in a thousand times more people reading it than would otherwise have read it.

quote:

---

fatwa-online.com:

Question: What is the ruling regarding undergoing plastic surgery?

Response: Plastic surgery as applied in (the field of) medicine is divided into two categories:

One of them (is that which) is beautifying (oneself) by removing a defect which a person incurs as a result of an accident or other than that, wherein there is no (legal) harm (prohibition) in (doing so) because the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) permitted a man whose nose was cut off during battle (to replace his nose, but) not to take on a (replacement) nose (made) from gold. (Refer to the hadeeth of 'Urfujah bin As'ad (radhi-yAllaahu 'anhu) in the Sunan of Abu Daawood, at-Tirmidhee and an-Nasaa.ee)

---

But then again, demonizing Islam is a common theme when so much resistance to US and imperialist foreign policy has an Islamic "wrapping" or comes from populations that practice that religion.

Mind you, I'm no big fan of monotheism, whether of the Christian, Jewish or Islamic varieties. They seem to be vehicles for a lot of oppression in the world - both in the past and in the present. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins, e.g., really means to write about these religions when he claims to be writing about religion in general.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

When that "sensitivity" turns into death threats - it is unacceptable.

Threatening to murder someone for writing something you don't like is evil - pure and simple.

If people don't like the Satanic Verses all they have to do is refuse to read it. As it is, the only thing that was accomplished by this ridiculous death threat (apart from ruining Salman Rushdie's life) was that it catapulted the book to the top of every international best sellers list and resulted in a thousand times more people reading it than would otherwise have read it.

I'd like to see someone issue a "fatwa" against the people who issued the original fatwa against Rushdie - sentencing them to eternal damnation for having made a mockery of Islam.

---

quote:

---

That's a pretty outlandish conspiracy theory, to suggest Blair would bestow a knighthood solely for the sake of riling up a group of people, or even with the hopes of provoking a war
Anyway, I haven't read The Satanic Verses, but did enjoy Midnight's Children. It is perfectly conceivable for Rushdie to merit the honour. Free-Radical

---

This is the problem with people who catch only a few snippets from a thread and start opiniating.

You might not be aware, but Britain has, for years, honoured Charles Darwin by putting him on its money. Does this indicate some dastardly scheme to provoke outrage amongst Christian fundamentalists, perhaps to start a war or cover up misdeeds?

quote:

---

Is it that outlandish to believe that a head of government/state who is feeling some heat through a scandal or whatever would want to open a sideshow to deflect attention?

---

It's not outlandish at all. It sounds like a very plausible explanation for why pig-Khomeini issued the death threat against Rushdie in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Universities have a right to grant or not grant tenure to people as they see fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Universities have a right to grant or not grant tenure to people as they see fit.

---

This is a simplistic position to take. Jewish academics were targeted and forced out of Universities in Nazi Germany even before there were laws requiring it. To shrug and say that hiring is a neutral administrative "right" unrelated to ethical issues or malign non-academic political influences is a dangerous path.

Finklestein has been on Macarthyesque academic hit lists for as long as he has questioned the political abuses of the Holocaust--even though his own parents were survivors of that horror.

quote:

---

What is "moderate" about Saudi Arabia??? They are the most fanatically fascistic of all Arab governments and they would probably chop Rushdie's head off if he set foot in that country. -Stockholm

---

Beats me, what is moderate about Saudi Arabia. But you know well that is how the West describes its puppet and client regimes.

Other "moderates" are Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan..
Others (who try to resist the Imperialism of the West are "rogues", "terrorist-supporters".

quote:

---

What would you think if Daniel Pipes was denied tenure as a result of expressing himself?
What Philippe Rushton bieng denied tenure at Western after writing about how whites are suyperior to Blacks? -Stockholm

---

quote:

---

Backlash grows against British award of knighthood to Salman Rushdie

Pakistani hard-line clerics respond with an award of their own to Osama bin Laden.

By Dan Murphy

The award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, author of "The Satanic Verses," has prompted deep criticism from Egypt's parliament, which said Wednesday that the move was a bigger mistake than the publication of Danish cartoons about the prophet Muhammad that provoked global protests.

The parliament's Arab Affairs Committee said that the honor was a rejection of "all diplomatic principles" as it was given to someone who "has become famous because of his hostility to Islam."

Britain's award of a knighthood to the novelist, whose 1988 novel was criticized for its depiction of Islam, has stirred anger among many world Muslims, most notably in Pakistan, which has seen days of anti-British demonstrations and prompted one cabinet minister apparently to come out in defense of suicide attacks.

Reuters reports that a major Pakistani religious organization, the Ulema Council, has presented an award of their own to Osama bin Laden in response to Rushdie's knighthood....

Link to article

---

Hey Catchfire, this is neat. I have asked a number of times about how to edit posts and never got a reply. I guess I should have played with the buttons more.

[ 21 June 2007: Message edited by: Jerry West ]

Link to article

[ 21 June 2007: Message edited by: Jerry West ]

quote:

---

For those interested another source with lots of links on the Rushdie affair. This ignorant silliness on the part of the complainants would be hilarious if it didn't have such lethal expression. -JerryWest

---

Jerry,

I think you are looking at and judging a situation from a Western Christan's perspective.

In a nutshell, the West's Enlightenment that started in the 18th century has enabled today's Western Christians to tolerate and even embrace irreverent portrayals of their central religious figure, Jesus.

"Making Jesus controversial was by far the most forcefull way the Enlightenment could question the former pre-eminensce of dogma", McGill University Professor Ian Henderson put it. He added: "In their effort to liberate society from religious dogma, 18th century dissenters consciously remade the figure of Jesu as one of their key tactics". (Ottawa Citizen, April 16, 2006, P A7).

Islam is much younger than Christianity. Moreover, it is still too shackled by Western imperialist and colonialist foreign policies to have time and resources for enlightenment. In fact, in the face of such Western policies, instead of enlightenment we witness more entranchment in religion and dogma (martyrdom, suicide bombing, Al-Qaeda's appeal to a considerable segment of Muslims etc..)

Having said that, the pockets of "flippers" over Sulman Rushdie's writing and Knighthood are limited to two countries and few agitators here and there. Not bad, compared to how Christians would have reacted in the 15th century of Christianity to disrespectful portrayals of Jesus.

For Westerners to expect everybody to see things as they (Westerners) do, to react as they react and to think as they think is a myopic attitude.

Islam is in its 15th century while Christianity is in its 21st. And as mentioned above, the West's Enlightenment started in the 18th century.

quote:

---

bohajal:
I think you are looking at and judging a situation from a Western Christan's perspective.

---

I am certainly looking at it through my perspective which granted started out based in one both western and Christian. However, not being a Christian and having spent a number of years living in and studying Oriental societies, and studying a number of others I would no longer consider my perspective totally influenced by either western thought or Christianity.

quote:

---

Islam is in its 15th century while Christianity is in its 21st. And as mentioned above, the West's Enlightenment started in the 18th century.

---

That excuses the conduct of people who would kill over some silly issue like blasphemy? If the Islamic culture is unenlightened as you seem to be arguing is that a reason to condone their actions that infringe on other's rights to freedom of expression, particularly when those actions are violent ones?

quote:

---

I would have expected a better and more comprehensible analysis from you, Jerry,....

---

The analysis is there, and though it may explain these kinds of acts I see it neither as an excuse nor a justification.

I am talking about religious dogram, one aspect of culture. For you to come up with Islamic culture not being enlightened only reflects on your lack of culture. Maybe it was too busy enlightening the West, awakening it from its darkness, to enlighten itself !!

I do not agree with any concept of blasphemous anything and do not condone violence.

What I find stupid is provoking someone and then complaining about his/her reaction. Or better, dictate what should the reaction of that person exactly be.

This topic is more complicated and deserves more examination than to simply shrug it with "This ignorant silliness on the part of the complainants would be hilarious if it didn't have such lethal expression" or to lash out at your critics accusing them of condoning whatever ...

quote:

---

Islam is in its 15th century while Christianity is in its 21st. And as mentioned above, the West's Enlightenment started in the 18th century.

---

Generalizing about any religion based on the public statements of some politicians seems only a little less incendiary than the statements of those politicians themselves. Can you imagine the torrent of well-deserved abuse a babbler would be subject to if he/she made such generalizations about Judaism based on the public statements of some of the more xenophobic and racist Israeli politicians? You'd never hear the end of it.

We've had enough religious figures of authority in our own country, justifying decades of the sexual abuse of children, full of hatred towards gays and lesbians, violently antagonistic to the reproductive rights of women, and so on, to avoid being presumptious about other religions elsewhere. Furthermore, there are well-funded organizations in the US that call for, not the killing of one person but the imprisonment of every last Muslim for 20 years for the "crime" of being an adherent of Islam.

quote:

---

So, in other words we have to wait another 300 years before Islam catches up to Christianity in terms of experiencing a reformation and an enlightenment - death sentences stop being meted out on people for the slightest infraction of religious law?>

---

Stockholm, some day you'll get it figured out.

First, while there are very progressive democratic socialist-minded Christian and Islamic groups out there, clearly some of the more institutional ones are hardly very enlightened--especially the Evangelical Corporate Right-wing flakes and their Sharia Islamic counterparts.

Sure, I think Blair did this right at this moment just to take attention off his big scandal and refocus it elsewhere, and the loony corporate Islamic flake elite seems more than happy to help him do just that.

I don’t think this is likely to cause any actual suicide attacks—much like there wasn’t actually many takers for the assassination call against Rushdie over Satanic Verses 20 years ago.

quote:

---

bohajal:
For you to come up with Islamic culture not being enlightened only reflects on your lack of culture.

---

Actually, I did not say that Islamic culture wasn't enlightened (whatever one means by enlightened), I said that you seemed to indicate that it wasn't, as you plainly did by excusing their actions because they were 600 years behind Christianity. What makes you think that Christians are anymore enlightened (or whatever) than Muslims? It is certainly not my position.

quote:

---

I do not agree with any concept of blasphemous anything....

---

Say what? You will have to translate that statement.

quote:

---

What I find stupid is provoking someone and then complaining about his/her reaction.

---

A standard political tool. What I find stupid is allowing oneself to be provoked over silliness, like blasphemy.

In this case Blair's actions which were probably meant to make a statement about radical Islamists played into the hands of those Islamic leaders who wish to keep the anti-western fires fueled, they are not the stupid ones. For all we know Blair and the radical leaders might have a mutual interest in keeping the conflict going.

And those people who are allowing themselves to be manipulated by this maneuver are engaging in ignorant silliness.

Anyone who takes blasphemy seriously either has a vested interest in maintaining the myths of what is being challenged, or is probably ignorant.

And, believing that people should be killed for what they say is hardly enlightened in my book, regardless of what culture they come from.

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: Jerry West ]

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: Jerry West ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Rushdie is entirely deserving of the many literary awards he's received. A knighthood is more political, however. The British still retain this backward tradition. We Canadians do not.

---

quote:

---

The creation of the Order was the beginning of the establishment of the Canadian honours system, a system of awards and decorations to be bestowed onto Canadians and foreigners. Upon the creation of the system, it broke off the dependence of the honours system used by the United Kingdom and by some of its former Crown colonies and dominions.

---

In other words, we pick them. HRH Elizabeth II does what she's told. But, I admit, it still has a whiff of stinky politics about it.

In contrast, in regard to the British knighthoods and so on, "Certain honours are awarded solely at the Sovereign's discretion, such as the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of Merit and the Royal Family Order." So even our political awards already have a healthy dose of democracy in contrast to the autocratic British tradition. Furthermore, there is no hereditary Canadian peerage, etc., whatever that jackass Lord "about to go to jail" Black might think.