Let's Think Together
Here .... In your face
Published on June 24, 2007 By ThinkAloud In International
Few days ago the British Government honored Salman Rushdie, the West-Celebrated Islam-Bashing Indian writer by making him a Knight.

Now, if Rushdie was a great novelist or even close to that one would understand honoring him with such a venerated title. But given that his only achievement was that he wrote a novel in which he insulted Islam and its prophet in such a way that even the most anti-Islamists would not think of, it is only logical to ask: why was this writer honored in that way?

Not only that, it is more interesting that the media and the JU blogosphere ignored the incident as if nothing happened.

The whole western media got up in arms when Iran arranged for a conference to discuss the "Validity" of the Holocaust. Iran was not insulting Judaism. They were holding a conference to discuss the validity of a terrible crime. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, which one is more of a free speech: to discuss the validity of a crime or to insult a whole religion?

If both are, then why was the outrage against Iran?

Even if Rushdie's writings were free speech, does it deserve an award? a Knighthood?

I don’t think any literary critic even suggested that Rushdie's writings are considered anything more than ordinary. So why was he honored by a Knighthood?

We, in the west, may choose to ignore the whole question, as we did. However, Muslims will not and they are not.

Looking at the whole thing from here, it seems that our ally in the war on terror is undermining our efforts by giving our enemies more ammunition to flame the masses instead of supporting the moderate Muslim-majority.

Things seem to be going in a direction that Muslim extremists claimed to be their "Battle Cry" and that is: The west is out to destroy Islam. Is that what we really want to convey, let alone confirm, to Muslims allover the world?

First, the Cartoons insulting their Prophet, then the Pope insulting their Prophet and their religion and now the UK honors a writer for doing the same.

In any war, one would assume that we would support and encourage the moderates amongst our enemy who oppose the actions of the fanatics in order to undermine our enemy's base. But we are doing exactly the opposite as if we are looking for trouble and for more enemies. If we are, we are doing a fantastic job.

Comments (Page 3)
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Jun 26, 2007
Hell, when Jerry Falwell died, the left had a field day. If we had done that when some prominent Islamic leader passed, I can only imagine the outrage.
on Jun 26, 2007
You're asking people to contain themselves from expressing themselves. In other words you want them to give up the freedom of expression. Why? Because you fear that those would be allies would turn towards the enemy with open arms? Funny, I would think that if they embraced the beliefs of those who would do us harm would mean they had intentions of doing it already and were really only looking for an excuse to join them. How can we depend on a group of people as allies if at the drop of a hat they would join the enemy just because someone said something they didn't like? Are you trying to say Muslims are not smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong? And please don't give me that "I never said that" story.
on Jun 26, 2007
Are you trying to say Muslims are not smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong?


no their smart enough but they just don't care

you don't have to care if all you have to do is die in a holy war
on Jun 26, 2007
So it has NOTHING to do with their foreign policy, other than it makes international news.


That is part of Foreign policy. If i am , as you say, clueless you think the majority of Muslims are not?

Thanks for the lesson and great guess.
on Jun 26, 2007

That is part of Foreign policy. If i am , as you say, clueless you think the majority of Muslims are not?

So when we breath, and the papers pick it up, we have to quake in our boots because we just made foreign policy?

An extreme example, perhaps.  But take your view to a conclusion, and that is what you are saying.

But you are right in one respect.  Those clowns buring flags and bodies in effigy are clueless.  Otherwise, why would they have demanded the death of the Pope who was teaching a course in theology and quoting a Middle ages cleric?  Instead of denouncing the originator of the statement, they wanted to kill the messenger.  Wouldn't you call that clueless?  And would not then we have to rewrite history so as not to offend their tender sensibilities?

on Jun 26, 2007
Even if Rushdie's writings were free speech, does it deserve an award? a Knighthood?


Who are you to say he doesn't merit the honor.
on Jun 26, 2007
I've never seen you express sensitivity to the Christians these awards offend, TA. Have you once advocated for censoring the Da Vinci Code out of fear that Christian hate groups will act out, and that moderate Christians will support them in their anger?


First, I never advocated censoring Rushdie or anyone else for that matter. You are responding to a non-existent issue.

Second, i get offended with some of what is written about Jesus as well as any of God's prophets in general. I didnt write about it because we are not at war with Christian or Jewish people but we are at war with Muslim people. Officials are supposed to measure their actions in a way that serves their countries' interests not hinder it. Censoring Rushdie was never an issue, honoring him was the issue. I have no idea why people are bringing the censoring issue up. i didnt like what he said, but that doesnt mean i asked for censoring him.

In fact i really get upset when most Christians and Jews do not condemn what is sometimes written about Jesus or Moses. These Nobel Figures are icons for many people and whoever insults them insults their people. That doesnt mean that the people get violent or censor the writers, artists,... etc. but they should condemn such insults more consistently.
on Jun 26, 2007
I believe that you are only excusing those who would be offended and not expecting from them what you expect from England, or us for that matter.


I am not excusing them, i am saying we should recognize how they feel and use it to our advantage.

And you are ABSOLUTELY correct. I am expecting more from England and USA, shouldnt i?. i thinke we all should.
on Jun 26, 2007
I didnt write about it because we are not at war with Christian or Jewish people but we are at war with Muslim people.


No, we are at war with people whose faith happens to be predominantly Muslim. There is a difference.
on Jun 26, 2007
So when we breath, and the papers pick it up, we have to quake in our boots because we just made foreign policy?An extreme example, perhaps. But take your view to a conclusion, and that is what you are saying.


Extremes of any kind are not a good idea no matter what. and "WE" are not officials. what "WE" say does not have the same impact as when it is said by the Queen of UK or the President of the USA. Does it?

Everything has its limits, even freedom of speech. that is the supreme court's ruling. and it makes sense. nothing is absolute in this world. so dont take anything to its extreme limits no matter what. This usually leads to disasters. Believe it or not, that is what these criminal terrorists did with Islam. let's not take things, even little things, to extremes. it is a slippery slope.
on Jun 26, 2007
no their smart enough but they just don't care

you don't have to care if all you have to do is die in a holy war


That's pretty obvious, at least for some of us but as you can see I have to ask cause it does not seem so obvious to some people, like TA.
on Jun 26, 2007
I am not excusing them, i am saying we should recognize how they feel and use it to our advantage.


Of course you are. Instead of expecting them to act like adults and ignore the beliefs of a single man, you expect them to retaliate just because they were offended. What they need to do is grow up and realize that their religion is not supreme and that there will always be those who don't like it. I don't think that raising hell every time someone says something bad about their religion is the best way to deal with the problem.

And you are ABSOLUTELY correct. I am expecting more from England and USA, shouldnt i?. i thinke we all should.


So then tell me why do you not expect as much from them? Is it because you fear them? Is it because they are more willing to do what our leaders refuse to? Is it because they are willing to fight for survival while we keep sending our soldiers to their deaths because we fear hitting the wrong ones?

I expect them to be mature, I expect them to understand that they are not absolute, that there will be those who will not like how they do things, I expect them to just turn around and ignoreunless their lives were being threatened. But if saying something bad about their religion or prophets is cause for death and destruction then I expect them expect the same retailation from us.
on Jun 26, 2007
what "WE" say does not have the same impact as when it is said by the Queen of UK or the President of the USA. Does it?


And there you hit it again. The Queen is not the PM, and therefore has no say in the foreign policy of that country. No more than you nor I. It has been many years since the Monarchy ruled by decree.
on Jun 26, 2007
Some information on the decision to knight Sir Salman can be found here:

WWW Link

On a personal note I saw the Queen being driven past my office at lunch today, but the thought of jumping in front of the car to protest the award never entered my head, for the obvious reason that Sir Salman's knighthood was well deserved. And I was hungry.
on Jun 26, 2007
So then tell me why do you not expect as much from them?


you expect more from people who are more educated, more free, more powerful,...etc.

That is why.
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last