The Rushdie Fatwa

Ahmad

Freedom of Speech or 'Incitement to Hatred'? Rushdie's filth belongs to the latter category, and is on par with much of the anti-semitic anti-holocaust garbage being churned out. Is Salman Rushdie's garbage acceptable simply because Islam and Muslims aren't categorised as 'race'? He should have forked out for for his own Security, since he alone was responsible for his actions.

adrian drummond

Ahmad, I don't recall christians losing the plot when Monty Python's film 'Life Of Brian' was released. Try to be a bit more circumspect. You live in a western democracy. If you don't like it's values then leave. No one will stop you.

Common Sense

Ahmad - it is your intolerance and thin-skinned whining that is 'filth'. If you don't like living in a free society, buy a one-way ticket to Tehran. You won't be missed.

Selby

Ahmad - I may dislike what Rushdie`s writes - in fact I find it tedious and rather dull literature...BUT it is his right to express himself loud and proud - as much as it is our right to disagree loudly. However, once violent protests overtake rational debate then the law must step in to prevent harm. If all writers/film makers/poets/politicians were responsible for the emotions they generated we would have to introduce a government censorship system which would mean the end of free speech/debate etc etc.....effectively an erosion of democracy.

Max Kaye

Ahmad, What if somebody like, say, the local Nazi party, decides that what you've just posted/published is 'filth' and 'garbage' and 'Incitement to Hatred' - and that it is the duty of all the party faithful to murder you? Wouldn't you want the enjoy the protection of the law and the support of all right-minded people. Freedom of speech is indivisible.

I respect your right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs you like, but I certainly don't necessarily respect these opinions and beliefs - or promise to refrain from subjecting them to criticism or ridicule.

If you don't like it then tough. This is what a free society is all about. (Incidentally, I should mention that I am also against laws against 'Holocaust denial', etc.)

pj

I must confess that on the occasions that I have attempted to sample Rushdie's prose it has left me with comparatively favourable recollections of root canal work. Nevertheless, the death sentence for literature of even his incomprehensibleness does seem a tad extreme. After all, if it became a yardstick, what would the Times Literary Supplement have to fill its pages?

bruce

Ahmad, I think makes Martin Amis`s case for a Reformation, an Enlightenment & a Renaissance in short order. Like Amis, I fear that its unlikely.

Novus

Yes, Ahmad, Rushdie's garbage is acceptable simply because Islam and Muslims aren't categorised as 'race'. Like it or not, religion is just an idea, which like any other idea can be criticised in a free society. People choose to hold ideas; they do not choose their race. Therefore their ideas may legitimately be criticised while their race may not. What Rushdie did in writing and publishing The Satanic Verses was perfectly legal and ought to have been robustly defended, even by those who disagreed with him, while what those who threatened him with death, and tried to kill him, did was illegal (and fundamentally barbaric) and ought to have been tirelessly stamped out. It was the responsibility of the state alone to maintain and defend the conditions in which Rushdie could freely criticise ideas immune from hysterical and petulant attempts at implacably self-righteous reprisal.

Laurie

We all know that muslims of a certain cast of mind are very sensitive little flowers and their ideology is so intrinsically ridiculous and internally flawed as to need the utmost vigilance in case criticism undermines it once and for all.....whoops looks like a fatwa for me. Still, Rushdie must have known what he was unleashing and apart from the controversy, the book doesn't have all that much to recommend it, so I think it was reasonable that he take care of some of the expenses related to his security. Spinelessness and realpolitik diplomacy are easily confused!

Roy

He wasn't responsible for the disgusting threats, get a life Ahmad, live and let live. It was very much a shameful episode. Yet we kept the general public of Great Britain well and truly muzzled, when it came to complaining about another race, or any monkey business such different ethnic peoples might be up to. No remarks what-so-ever were allowed. This is the freedom of speech we are supposed to be so proud of. Incoming and overseas people can threaten life and limb yet in our own backyard we are constrained. Take the warnings of the most enlightened politician in the 20th century; Enoch Powell. We are barely allowed to mention his name. Political correctness gone mad, just to protect people like the above correspondent, who say and threaten who and what they like.

Zane

Of the major religions in the 21st Century, only extreme Islam is the most publicly contemptuous of all other creeds. Until the Ayatollah recognises that other civilised people in the world exist and are not in fact demons, the west will get nowhere.

Mike

Ahmad - have you actually read what Rushdie wrote? He has the right to say whatever he wants in a free society much as it is your right to diasgree with him. We live in a society founded on judeo-christian principles. If you dislike this I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where you will find the environment more convivial.

Christopher

And lets not forget Norman Tebbit's comment at the time that Rushdie’s “public life” was “a record of despicable acts of betrayal of his upbringing, religion, adopted home and nationality”. and that Rushdie had used the right of free speech to “insult, demean and degrade”.

William Norton

Bruce: Islam cannot have a Reformation, since they don't have a Pope to rebel against, and they can't have an Enlightenment without a culture that permits challenges to any sacred texts. As for a Renaissance, in the sense of a flowering of culture based on the rediscovery of forgotten works - well, I think that's what Osama claims to be doing, returning to the purity of the past.

Craig

The funniest bit in the Satanic Verses was the west end musical version of Our Mutual Friend called Friend! It was known within the showbiz industry as 'the chums'. Maybe the Ayatollah didn't get that far into it.

Ted Tedford

'Ahmad' sounds like a mischief-maker using a Muslim-sounding name to provoke Coffee Housers.

Ruddigore Topsider

While taking issue with William Norton's mildly pedantic tone, I agree with his final point. There's a real chance that Islamism/bin Ladenism is the Islamic 'reformation' and renaissance rolled into one. Here's a man with no real academic, legal or religious authority who has convinced hundreds of thousands of Muslims that violent jihad is the 'authentic' expression of Islam, even where that means murdering fellow Muslims. The propagation of his ideas, and those of other Islamists, is similar to the Reformers use of new technology to distribute vernacular versions of the Bible. This took the power of interpretation from the clergy and put it into the hands of the laity. We should all be really worried, because there's little sign of the 'moderate' Islamic 'community' mounting a credible counter-reformation.

dave, surrey

R. Topsider:"Here's a man with no real academic, legal or religious authority who has convinced hundreds of thousands of Muslims that violent jihad is the 'authentic' expression of Islam, even where that means murdering fellow Muslims" The same could be said for the Mahdi in 1880's Sudan. Is this something peculiar to islam, not so much reformation but more periodic counter revolution. The obvious difference is today we have instant access to global events.

Christopher

I agree Ahamad looks like he may be fictitious, but Tebbit is real enough and his appeasement of the Islamo – Fascists was disgusting. We shouldn’t just be blaming the lefties for two decades of policy failure.

JohnF

You mention Norman Tebbitt's comment at the time the 'Verses' were published that Rushdie had used the right of free speech to “insult, demean and degrade”. Well, I have to confess that was also my opnion in the 1990s. However, at the time I simply did not understand Islamism and its vile doctrines, and have since realised that Rushdie was right to express those views, and that the UK government was right to give him protection. The creed of radical Islamism is the greatest threat to the civilised world, and one we need to oppose with unrelenting vigour. One only has to read about the life of Mohammed and the violent establishment of his religion to understand of roots of this appalling creed.

Nicholas

"We shouldn’t just be blaming the lefties for two decades of policy failure."

I agree. We should be blaming them for more than 10 decades of inflicting their barmy ideas on the us. The last two decades (?) were not policy failure though. They set out to deconstruct and socially re-engineer Britain with multi-cultural diversity fascism, PC and encouraged immigration on a vast scale to alter demographics. They succeeded and we are now living with the resultant misery.

Abdul

Ahmad - you might be an agent provocateur, aiming to incite Islamophobia by your aggressive undermining of the roots of our western life. Sadly, I think you're for real, there are considerable numbers of Islamicists who really do think like you.

Fergus Pickering

In Iran rule the fierce ayatollahs Who scorn to wear trousers or collars Each beardy old sod Is elected by God Ans spits on United States dollars

mark

Ahmad is a plant - seems more than a coincidence it was the first post - and there have been no follow-ups.

Max Kaye

Ahmad may indeed be a plant (well, a weed anyway), but there are many who sincerely believe in the kind of dangerous rubbish he spouts.

Tarek S Arab

Those who are quick to suggest that those who disagree with aspects of so called " Western civilization" should pack up and leave are guilty of nothing less than rascism. All Britons regardless of their ethnicity and skin colour are British and why it is that only the lighter skinned among us seem capable of urging those who by some strange coincidence are of darker hue that they should shut up or actually migrate from their HOME COUNTRY astounds me. Then again, what would I know, after all I am only British!

James

Ahhh Tarek, Those who are quick to suggest racism have usually have no particular point to make. It was only a matter of time. It is not for us to accomodate incompatible cultural practices that so obviously go against the grain. It is for those people to embrace what it is to be British, follow our laws and to integrate with our society. Calling for the death of a writer or agreeing with such a call is not acceptable in our society, nor should it be. Even if you are British, if you are not prepared integrate then I'm sure there are other countries that 'could' make such people happier. But if the decision is to remain then yes...he/she should shut up.

Laurie

So James, where did Britain go wrong? Was it wrong to take muslim migrants in the first place or has British society alienated those who, had they been more warmly welcomed, would have been good citizens. There are always people talking madness and loopy religious nonsense....it's the reasons people start listening that should concern us.

Nick Kaplan

Ahmad, I think you need to remember the classic Voltaire idiom on free speech “I may detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” The principle is not “I will defend to the death your right to say anything I vaguely agree with.” This is a vital principle of tolerance in a free society, but it does not imply you should to feel it necessary to respect Rushdie’s opinions. In fact the very idea of tolerance implies you do not respect what he says, otherwise you would endorse not tolerate it. The fact you do not like what someone says is no reason to stop them saying it, if this were the case I’m afraid you would not have been allowed to make your initial comment, as it appears most people, thankfully, disagree with it.

Usman Anwar

I've just read a wikidpedia on Satanic verses. I can understand his intentions but to put it in a context that is highly blasphemous e.g."Baal goes into hiding in an underground brothel, where the prostitutes assume the identities of the prophet's wives." That's blasphemous isn't it? To say the Qu'ran is fundamentally flawed/altered by the prophet Mohammad (p.b.u.h) when given to the people of Islam is a bit dastardly and highly sensitive to all muslims alike, including myself. to actually give pictures of phophets and angels is unacceptable in it's roots. While i understand his concept of the book: Alienation of immigration, he has taken it too far i feel. To make comical remarks about Islam and it's idealogy is naive. Naive as it was to think there would not be a backlash from the Islamic community as a whole. I'm all for the "free-speech" concept. but i feel there does need to be drawn a line between what is acceptable and what is blasphemous. Rushdi makes comical, unacceptable and insensitive remarks about Islam. What on earth was he thinking? Why could he not have put the concept of Alienation into a different context rather than religion? I'm not going to say "ooofff with his head", it's not his fault for writing the book but the publishers fault for mass producing it. there really should be a debate on Freedom of speech versus blasphemy, the latter of which is Satanic verses.

Ossy

Sorry , should have checked message through. From what i understand his intention was to classify this book on alienation. I don't understand the reasons of his decision to intertwine religion with alienation. With reasonable foresight, and comparisons of religion in a highly absurd and disrespectful manner. He had to have been aware of the controversy of his publication. Can he really have not been aware of must have been aware that in Islamic countries he'd be condemned and be put in great personal danger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy#Blasphemy_laws Why does he not pay for his own security? mug. how rude a biopic.

Benjamin Kirby

Christopher Norman Tebbit may have said that Rushdie’s public life was “a record of despicable acts of betrayal of his upbringing, religion, adopted home and nationality” and that Rushdie had used the right of free speech to “insult, demean and degrade”. Tebbit was and is right. That is precisely what Rushdie did. Then he found his original community less spineless than Westerners. Does not justify killing him, but the fact that bad people wanted to does not make Rushdie a nice person. Tarek S Arab, could you please apply that same logic to the Pied Noir of Algeria, or the Israelis for that matter. The PN were in Algeria longer than British Muslims have been here. Was that ethnic cleansing wrong? Was it racism?

cs192

Adrian Drummond Wrote: "Ahmad, I don't recall christians losing the plot when Monty Python's film 'Life Of Brian' was released."
Adrian, they did lose the plot, with many bishops in the UK, USA and Ireland denouncing the film and advising their congregations to steer clear. Cleese and Palin ended up on British TV defending the film against senior members of the clergy