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 6)
6 PagesFirst 4 5 6 
on Jul 03, 2007
the Muslims are not concerned about our sensibilities


on Jul 03, 2007
please explain that (in bold italics) to me. Explain this point not any other since this is the only thing i am after in the article. having the right is one thing, using or not using it is a right too. isnt it?


Even this Administration, as dumb as it is, recognizes that. if that is the case, the effort to entice the moderate Muslims to our side should be a major objective.


But that does not mean we should take away peoples rights to speak their minds and that does not mean that we alienate our own people simply because their views differ from some Muslims just to make them our friends. When will it end? What if they think we should allow students to learn about Islam in American schools, should we allow it as not to offend them? What if they think the Statue of Liberty is offensive to Muslims to have to see her everyday because she does not cover her face, will we have to put a veil on her as well? Do you see where I'm getting at?

At this moment a large group of Muslims hate Bush, do you think we should just remove him because of that? Do you think that if we somehow got rid of Bush that they would just say "OK, now we are allies, no more death for Americans"? I'm sorry but trust and respect has to be earned and so far the average Muslim has not earned it from me.
on Jul 03, 2007
But that does not mean we should take away peoples rights to speak their minds and that does not mean that we alienate our own people simply because their views differ from some Muslims just to make them our friends


Of course it does not if it is related to anything that is even slightly important or if it hurts you to any degree. But here is the main question: Is Honoring Rushdie with a Knighthood (which as you see on this thread is not that important or meaningful in the eyes of many people here and in the UK) worth alienating the majority of 1.4 Billion people (even if we think they are nuts and over-protective), validates the false claims of our enemy and increases their support base? I say no it is not worth it. This is not a concession of anykind to anyone. It is just a smart way of using our actions to serve our objectives.

At this moment a large group of Muslims hate Bush, do you think we should just remove him because of that? Do you think that if we somehow got rid of Bush that they would just say "OK, now we are allies, no more death for Americans


You comparing annulling the result of our election to honoring Rushdie???? if we dont have the capacity to weigh each of our actions and the response to it, then we are really doomed. there is a proper action for each case.

And funny you should ask that. because that "large group of Muslims" including the majority of them here in the US were instrumental in getting him elected in 2000. that is a fact. the Muslim votes in Florida were overwhelmingly for him. They also supported him initially in this war thinking (naively imho) the US will just go there, take Saddam out then go back home. How did they reach that conclusion i will never know. but they did. so they really dont hate him, they are disappointed that he didnt live up to their silly expectation.

I think i disagree with him more than they do. I tell you, It is a strange feeling and awkward too when you talk to someone from another country who likes your president more than you do. I guess they look only from the outside , they are not concerned with what happens here and mostly they are not aware of it. And they sure adore his father. I dont care for either of the two.
Go figure .....

on Jul 03, 2007

Is Honoring Rushdie with a Knighthood (which as you see on this thread is not that important or meaningful in the eyes of many people here and in the UK) worth alienating the majority of 1.4 Billion people

Today knighthood, tomorrow, what?  Once you start down the slope of accomodation, the only end is enslavement to other's decisions.

As WOPER said in War Games "The only way to win is to not play the game".

on Jul 03, 2007
As WOPER said in War Games "The only way to win is to not play the game".


unfortunately we are forced to play the game
on Jul 03, 2007
Today knighthood, tomorrow, what?


I think i responded to that in advance:

if we dont have the capacity to weigh each of our actions and the response to it, then we are really doomed. there is a proper action for each case
on Jul 03, 2007
unfortunately we are forced to play the game


No one is forced to play the game. The price of freedom is not cheap, and sometimes has to be paid with the our blood and that of our countrymen. But to accede to the whims of psychopaths may allow you to shed less blood in the short term, but it will not bring peace or freedom.
on Jul 03, 2007
unfortunately we are forced to play the game


Exactly. Then we must play it smartly.

on Jul 03, 2007
But to accede to the whims of psychopaths may allow you to shed less blood


this is what the French thought with Hitler. and what they have been saying for this
on Jul 03, 2007

if we dont have the capacity to weigh each of our actions and the response to it, then we are really doomed. there is a proper action for each case

The proper action is to obey the laws in the society you live in, not the laws of other societies that contribute nothing to your health or well being.  Like it or not, that is why there are borders, and why it is not illegal here to say "I hate blonds", whereas in other countries it is.

You can let the clowns dictate to you how you think, speak and act.  I chose to not start down that road that leads to enslavement.

on Jul 03, 2007
So now you presume to speak for 1.4 billion Muslims? Or even the majority of them?


I didnt presume that. and i am not speaking for anyone but myself. I am just saying what i read and hear in their media indicates that. If you think i am hearing them wrong, i honestly hope you are right.

It is not just the people i know, it is their media in general. If you know how they feel and think you will discover that they, deep down, dont have any animosity towards "America", only its policies and its disregard for them in general. right or wrong, that is how they feel. Our actions tell them a lot more about us than our rhetoric. it is up to us to convey to them whatever we wish. I think the message we send by honoring Rushdie is the wrong one. You and others disagree. For our sake, I hope i am wrong.
on Jul 03, 2007
I think the message we send by honoring Rushdie is the wrong one


1. The Queen is not a representative of the United States government. She in NO WAY represents our government; a little skirmish a couple centuries ago ended that.

2. Even the Queen is not sending a wrong message. As LW pointed out, Rushdie's body of work is actually quite lengthy, it's just that this one piece is more notorious than the others.

3. If the majority of Muslims were as violent as you seem to fear they are, every one of us would be dead. To their own credit, most are quite moderate.

4. Free speech isn't truly free speech unless it offends SOMEONE! It's to noone's credit to allow only speech that agrees with everyone.
on Jul 04, 2007
The Queen is not a representative of the United States government


Of course she is not. When i say "WE" i meant the USA and Allies in the war on terror.

To their own credit, most are quite moderate.


I agree with you on that and i dont fear the majority. That is why i am saying we can win them on our side if we just try.

6 PagesFirst 4 5 6