Islamophobia in the US

[Guest alex]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

Edited August 25, 2010 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame.

 

why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say.

 

You've read it now?

 

no.

 

Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day.

 

I'll say what the fuck I like, which is the point. Bollocks to Islam, Allah.........they can all fuck off.

 

Rattled yet, you sad old man?

 

 

ah, a sad old man because I've seen a bit of the real world then ? How immature a view. As Kevin S whatsisname says [whoever he is] if you muslims aren't prepared to accept the west is a more open society than you care for, don't bother coming and telling us what we should be doing. You are now highlighting the whole problem here, but don't realise it.

[acrossthepond 699]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

[Park Life 70]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

That's shit as well, not that I've read it.

[LeazesMag 0]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ? You may be right, but don't you also think the whole point of building this mosque is also provocative ? How do they think it will "heal relations or build bridges" or other such bollocks. How thick are they ?

 

You seem like a canny bloke tbh, and think about things, but my point is a pretty straightforward one to accept, you aren't so worldly wise as you think you are if you can't see it. If you want to live in the west, you have to accept that it is a more open society, you can't tell us what we can and can't do. Issuing a fatwa on someone just for writing a book is the act of a total madman, and likewise all those tosspots who stood behind and even worse would carry it out. The whole lot of them should be dumped into the middle of the ocean. As I said in a previous post, give me the gun and I'll tell them what I can and can't say.

[Guest alex]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

Ok, I agree with that. Like I said, he knew what he was doing and was trying to be controversial. You could have just said that to Leazes though.

You're eloquent enough to make your points without resorting to telling him to fuck off.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame.

 

why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say.

 

You've read it now?

 

no.

 

Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day.

 

I'll say what the fuck I like, which is the point. Bollocks to Islam, Allah.........they can all fuck off.

 

Rattled yet, you sad old man?

 

There's only one person rattled here lad, and it isn't me because I don't give a shite.

[Park Life 70]

Btw didn't he convert to Islam in a very public way the shithouse.

[Guest alex]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ? You may be right, but don't you also think the whole point of building this mosque is also provocative ? How do they think it will "heal relations or build bridges" or other such bollocks. How thick are they ?

 

You seem like a canny bloke tbh, and think about things, but my point is a pretty straightforward one to accept, you aren't so worldly wise as you think you are if you can't see it. If you want to live in the west, you have to accept that it is a more open society, you can't tell us what we can and can't do. Issuing a fatwa on someone just for writing a book is the act of a total madman, and likewise all those tosspots who stood behind and even worse would carry it out. The whole lot of them should be dumped into the middle of the ocean. As I said in a previous post, give me the gun and I'll tell them what I can and can't say.

I don't think you can't have it both ways tbh - criticising people for attacking freedom of speech whilst supporting what is essentially an attack on freedom of religion. Surely you see the paradox.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

Ok, I agree with that. Like I said, he knew what he was doing and was trying to be controversial. You could have just said that to Leazes though.

You're eloquent enough to make your points without resorting to telling him to fuck off.

 

He'd hardly be the first person with a book/play/film/song being controvertial to shift more copies, he just had the balls to aim his controversy in an area that would land him in some serious shit! If he'd done an attack on the Budhists he'd have been fine, they'd have just threatened to set fire to themsleves as a protest!

[Park Life 70]

What I don't like about Rushdie is not only that his prose is laboured and faintly whimsical in the (I'm a literary man cor look at me - Vikram Seth is another), but he also endless courts the Notting Hill set and for balance gentlemans clubs where he pretends he's actually working calss the fat ponce.

[LeazesMag 0]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ? You may be right, but don't you also think the whole point of building this mosque is also provocative ? How do they think it will "heal relations or build bridges" or other such bollocks. How thick are they ?

 

You seem like a canny bloke tbh, and think about things, but my point is a pretty straightforward one to accept, you aren't so worldly wise as you think you are if you can't see it. If you want to live in the west, you have to accept that it is a more open society, you can't tell us what we can and can't do. Issuing a fatwa on someone just for writing a book is the act of a total madman, and likewise all those tosspots who stood behind and even worse would carry it out. The whole lot of them should be dumped into the middle of the ocean. As I said in a previous post, give me the gun and I'll tell them what I can and can't say.

I don't think you can't have it both ways tbh - criticising people for attacking freedom of speech whilst supporting what is essentially an attack on freedom of religion. Surely you see the paradox.

 

they can worship who they like as much as they like but don't bother telling us in our own country what we can and can't do, or threaten to kill people just because they upset their poor eccentric little feelings, or get upset when someone calls a teddy bear Mohammed. How stupid is that.

[Guest alex]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ? You may be right, but don't you also think the whole point of building this mosque is also provocative ? How do they think it will "heal relations or build bridges" or other such bollocks. How thick are they ?

 

You seem like a canny bloke tbh, and think about things, but my point is a pretty straightforward one to accept, you aren't so worldly wise as you think you are if you can't see it. If you want to live in the west, you have to accept that it is a more open society, you can't tell us what we can and can't do. Issuing a fatwa on someone just for writing a book is the act of a total madman, and likewise all those tosspots who stood behind and even worse would carry it out. The whole lot of them should be dumped into the middle of the ocean. As I said in a previous post, give me the gun and I'll tell them what I can and can't say.

I don't think you can't have it both ways tbh - criticising people for attacking freedom of speech whilst supporting what is essentially an attack on freedom of religion. Surely you see the paradox.

 

they can worship who they like as much as they like but don't bother telling us in our own country what we can and can't do, or threaten to kill people just because they upset their poor eccentric little feelings, or get upset when someone calls a teddy bear Mohammed. How stupid is that.

I'm not defending that, I'm dead against it. But (just for arguments sake) say the Mosque/Cultural centre is a deliberately provocative act and the same goes for The Satanic Verses - why is one ok whilst the other isn't?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

From http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

 

Regarding EDL protests in England:

 

"What is in fact needed is for the Public Order Act to be amended to allow the banning not just of marches but also of static protests"

 

 

On Richard Dawkins:

 

"Unfortunately, accusations of racism and Islamophobia haven't had the slightest restraining effect on Dawkins."

 

 

On FOE march:

 

"There is a clear danger that actions such as the Freedom of Speech rally give the extreme Right a cloak of legitimacy."

 

"The organisers of the protest for "freedom of expression" in Trafalgar Square last Saturday claimed to be standing up for free speech after the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in Denmark. But what they were really doing was standing up for their rights to insult and offend Muslims, and increase Islamophobia in Britain."

 

 

Peter Tatchell is branded an Islamophobe/BNP apologist for giving a speech at a rally for freedom of speech, and there's plenty on the various cartoons and material that should be banned as it is 'Islamophobic'.

 

They also have 2500 articles on 'resisting Islamophobia' which includes counter protests to the NY one and examples of support for the Muslim community in the U.S.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Park Life 70]

Let's not forget Gorgeous George Galloway and his act.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ?

 

I'd like to hear this answered. The majority of literary critics would disagree with ATP's assessment.

[LeazesMag 0]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ? You may be right, but don't you also think the whole point of building this mosque is also provocative ? How do they think it will "heal relations or build bridges" or other such bollocks. How thick are they ?

 

You seem like a canny bloke tbh, and think about things, but my point is a pretty straightforward one to accept, you aren't so worldly wise as you think you are if you can't see it. If you want to live in the west, you have to accept that it is a more open society, you can't tell us what we can and can't do. Issuing a fatwa on someone just for writing a book is the act of a total madman, and likewise all those tosspots who stood behind and even worse would carry it out. The whole lot of them should be dumped into the middle of the ocean. As I said in a previous post, give me the gun and I'll tell them what I can and can't say.

I don't think you can't have it both ways tbh - criticising people for attacking freedom of speech whilst supporting what is essentially an attack on freedom of religion. Surely you see the paradox.

 

they can worship who they like as much as they like but don't bother telling us in our own country what we can and can't do, or threaten to kill people just because they upset their poor eccentric little feelings, or get upset when someone calls a teddy bear Mohammed. How stupid is that.

I'm not defending that, I'm dead against it. But (just for arguments sake) say the Mosque/Cultural centre is a deliberately provocative act and the same goes for The Satanic Verses - why is one ok whilst the other isn't?

 

it isn't the same at all. It could be if Rushdie stood in a market stall in Tehran and tried to sell his book and incidentally, how much freedom of speech or understanding would he get for his point of view do you think ? Do you really think that it should always be us in the west who show such tolerance towards those who don't and never will show the same in return.

[Guest alex]

His point is valid though I think, ATP. Especially since, as I said, most of the people in Iran wouldn't have even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it. Also, I don't think you have to have read it to be pissed off with the Ayatollah telling people to kill a novelist because he didn't agree with the content of a book the novelist had written. It's Islam at its worst imo, a highly influencial fundamentalist leader telling people what to think and encouraging people to carry out violence.

I've read the first 25 pages of Midnight's Children btw

 

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better."

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ? You may be right, but don't you also think the whole point of building this mosque is also provocative ? How do they think it will "heal relations or build bridges" or other such bollocks. How thick are they ?

 

You seem like a canny bloke tbh, and think about things, but my point is a pretty straightforward one to accept, you aren't so worldly wise as you think you are if you can't see it. If you want to live in the west, you have to accept that it is a more open society, you can't tell us what we can and can't do. Issuing a fatwa on someone just for writing a book is the act of a total madman, and likewise all those tosspots who stood behind and even worse would carry it out. The whole lot of them should be dumped into the middle of the ocean. As I said in a previous post, give me the gun and I'll tell them what I can and can't say.

I don't think you can't have it both ways tbh - criticising people for attacking freedom of speech whilst supporting what is essentially an attack on freedom of religion. Surely you see the paradox.

 

they can worship who they like as much as they like but don't bother telling us in our own country what we can and can't do, or threaten to kill people just because they upset their poor eccentric little feelings, or get upset when someone calls a teddy bear Mohammed. How stupid is that.

I'm not defending that, I'm dead against it. But (just for arguments sake) say the Mosque/Cultural centre is a deliberately provocative act and the same goes for The Satanic Verses - why is one ok whilst the other isn't?

 

it isn't the same at all. It could be if Rushdie stood in a market stall in Tehran and tried to sell his book and incidentally, how much freedom of speech or understanding would he get for his point of view do you think ? Do you really think that it should always be us in the west who show such tolerance towards those who don't and never will show the same in return.

It's the same because they're both things that should be defended in the west. We should defend freedom of speech and religious tolerance. Neither is defended in Tehran but that's not the point. Nicely ducked though

[Geordieracer 0]

Have ANY of you actually read The Satanic Verses?

[Guest alex]

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ?

 

I'd like to hear this answered. The majority of literary critics would disagree with ATP's assessment.

Because he thinks it is, which is neither provable or disprovable but as valid as the opinion of a literary critic. I do think you're just making stuff up now btw. I don't see how you could give a quantifiable source to back up the notion that most critics said Rushdie wasn't trying to outrage Muslims. You'd have to be naive to think someone as clever as Rushdie, who was also a member of the faith in question didn't think he'd stir up a hornets nest though.

[Park Life 70]

 

He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

 

Was it ? How do you know that ?

 

I'd like to hear this answered. The majority of literary critics would disagree with ATP's assessment.

Because he thinks it is, which is neither provable or disprovable but as valid as the opinion of a literary critic. I do think you're just making stuff up now btw. I don't see how you could give a quantifiable source to back up the notion that most critics said Rushdie wasn't trying to outrage Muslims. You'd have to be naive to think someone as clever as Rushdie, who was also a member of the faith in question didn't think he'd stir up a hornets nest though.

 

 

 

 

* October 5, 1988: India bans the novel's importation.

 

* November 21, 1988: Grand sheik of Egypt's Al-Azhar calls on Islamic organizations in Britain to take legal action to prevent the novel's distribution

 

* November 24, 1988: The novel is banned in South Africa and Pakistan; bans follow within weeks in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Qatar.

 

* December 1988-January 1989: British Muslims hold book burnings in Bolton and Bradford; Islamic Defense Council demands that Penguin Books apologise, withdraw the novel, destroy any extant copies, and never reprint it.

 

* February 12, 1989: Six people are killed and 100 injured during anti-Rushdie protests in Islamabad, Pakistan.

 

* February 13, 1989: One person is killed and 60 injured in anti-Rushdie riots in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India[citation needed].

 

* February 14, 1989: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issues a fatwa calling on all Muslims to execute all those involved in the publication of the novel; the 15 Khordad Foundation, an Iranian religious foundation or bonyad, offers a monetary reward for the murder of Rushdie.

 

* February 16, 1989: Rushdie enters the protection program of the British government and issues a statement regretting the offence the novel has caused; Khomeini responds by reiterating: "It is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he has, his life and his wealth, to send [Rushdie] to hell."

 

* February 17, 1989: Iranian leader Ali Khamenei says Rushdie could be pardoned if he apologises.[4]

 

* February 18, 1989: Rushdie apologizes just as Khamenei has suggested; initially, Irna (the official Iranian news agency) says Rushdie's statement "is generally seen as sufficient enough to warrant his pardon".[5]

 

* February 22, 1989: The novel is published in the U.S.A.; major bookstore chains Barnes and Noble and Waldenbooks, under threat, remove the novel from one-third of the nation's bookstores.

 

* February 24, 1989: Iranian businessman offers a $3 million bounty for the death of Rushdie.

 

* February 24, 1989: Twelve people die in anti-Rushdie rioting in Bombay, Maharashtra, India[citation needed].

 

* February 28, 1989: Two bookstores in Berkeley, USA, are firebombed for selling the novel.

 

* March 7, 1989: Britain breaks diplomatic relations with Iran.

 

* March 1989: The Organization of the Islamic Conference calls on its 46 member governments to prohibit the novel. The Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar sets the punishment for possession of the book as three years in prison and a fine of $2,500; in Malaysia, three years in prison and a fine of $7,400; in Indonesia, a month in prison or a fine. The only nation with a predominantly Muslim population where the novel remains legal is Turkey. Several nations with large Muslim minorities, including Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Tanzania, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, also impose penalties for possessing the novel.

 

* May 1989: Popular musician Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens) gives indirect support for the fatwa and states during a British television documentary, according to the New York Times, that if Rushdie shows up at his door, he "might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like... I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is." Yusuf Islam later denies giving any support to the fatwa.[6] For more on this topic see Cat Stevens: Rushdie Controversy

 

* June 3, 1989: Khomeini dies.

 

* 1990: Rushdie apologised to Muslims and even formally converted to Islam,[7] but recanted a short time later describing it as the "biggest mistake of my life" in an interview he gave to Anne McElvoy of The Times published on August 26, 1995.

 

* 1990: Rushdie publishes an essay on Khomeini's death, "In Good Faith", to appease his critics and issues an apology in which he seems to reaffirm his respect for Islam; however, Iranian clerics do not retract the fatwa.

 

* 1990: Five bombings target bookstores in England.

 

* July 1991: Hitoshi Igarashi, the novel's Japanese translator, is stabbed to death; and Ettore Capriolo, its Italian translator, is seriously wounded.

 

* July 2, 1993: Thirty-seven Turkish intellectuals and locals participating in the Pir Sultan Abdal Literary Festival, die when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey, namely the Madimak Hotel, is burnt down by 2000 members of various anti-democratic, pro-sharia radical islamist groups protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator.

 

* October 1993: The novel's Norwegian publisher, William Nygaard, is shot and seriously injured.

 

* 1993: The 15 Khordad Foundation in Iran raises the reward for Rushdie's murder to $300,000.

 

* 1997: The bounty is doubled, to $600,000.

 

* 1998: Iranian government publicly declares that it will not carry out the death sentence against Rushdie. This is announced as part of a wider agreement to normalize relations between Iran and the United Kingdom. Rushdie subsequently declares that he will stop living in hiding, and that he regrets attempts to appease his critics by making statements to the effect that he is a practicing Muslim. Rushdie affirms that he is not, in fact, religious. Despite the death of Khomeini and the Iranian government's official declaration, the fatwa remains in force, according to certain members of the Islamic fundamentalist media:

 

"The responsibility for carrying out the fatwa was not the exclusive responsibility of Iran. It is the religious duty of all Muslims – those who have the ability or the means – to carry it out. It does not require any reward. In fact, those who carry out this edict in hopes of a monetary reward are acting against Islamic injunctions."[citation needed]

 

* 1999: An Iranian foundation places a $2.8 million bounty on Rushdie's life.

 

* January 2002: South Africa lifts its ban on the Satanic Verses ."[8]

 

* February 16, 2003: Iran's Revolutionary Guards reiterate the call for the assassination of Rushdie. As reported by the Sunday Herald, "Ayatollah Hassan Saneii, head of the semi-official Khordad Foundation that has placed a $2.8 million bounty on Rushdie's head, was quoted by the Jomhuri Islami newspaper as saying that his foundation would now pay $3 million to anyone who kills Rushdie."[9]

 

* March 2004: 16 years after the first English edition Hungarian translation is published, translator's name not specified for security reasons.

 

* Early 2005: Khomeini's fatwa against Rushdie is reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwa on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it.

 

* February 14, 2006: Iran’s official state news agency reports on the anniversary of the decree that the government-run Martyrs Foundation has announced, "The fatwa by Imam Khomeini in regard to the apostate Salman Rushdie will be in effect forever", and that one of Iran’s state bonyad, or foundations, has offered a $2.8 million bounty on his life.[3]

</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

Absolutely ridiculous. I mean that's just down right scary.

[Park Life 70]

Have ANY of you actually read The Satanic Verses?

 

Why?

[Guest alex]

Have ANY of you actually read The Satanic Verses?

Ask KSA, he brought it up

Edited August 25, 2010 by alex

[acrossthepond 699]

I don't know if I'm going to be able to adequately explain the nature of some of the obvious offenses that Rushdie presented in the book, but I'll give it a go.

 

- In some of the "dream sequences" wherein are contained the most inflammatory material, the book tells a story of a "prophet" (who is apparently one of the book's main characters) who is named Mahound. That name harks back to the first interactions of European Christians and Muslims, where the Christians wrongly interpreted Islam as a religion wherein the Prophet is worshiped. "Mahound" is the name those Christians falsely gave the figure they believed to be the "God" of Islam. In fact, some medieval texts cited "Mahound" as one of the names of the devil. Giving the name Mahound to this prophet character, who is plainly meant to represent Muhammad (pbuh), is somewhat equivalent to having a character in a story who walks on water, changes water to wine, has 13 disciples and is called Lucifer.

- The city where this prophet lives (which again is obviously meant to represent Mecca) is called Jahiliya. Jahiliya is an Arabic word that signifies the period of "ignorance" that existed in the Arabian Peninsula (including Mecca) before the advent of Islam. So by bestowing this name on his fictional Meccaesque city, he is trying to show that Mecca (even in the time of the Prophet) is still ignorant; in other words, he denies the revelations of the Qur'an.

- There is a brothel in this city of Jahiliya where the prostitutes have the same name as the Prophet's wives. The wives are greatly esteemed in Islam. I'm sure I don't have to explain this one any further.

- In another dream sequence there is an Indian girl who leads believers into the ocean and apparently gets them all drowned. This girl is called Aisha, who was the Prophet's most beloved wife.

 

I could go on. Some of these may not make sense or be relevant to you, but I assure you that they are grievous insults and that Rushdie, as a Muslim and an educated man himself, could not have unintentionally included these inflammatory references. The dream sequences of the book seem to be deliberately set up in order to profane everything that is held holy in Islam. I can't see what perspective that could have come from, other than one intended to 'outrage.'

 

***

 

Leazes, I'm not sure where the source of conflict here is. I've already said over and over again that I don't dispute that Rushdie or anyone else can write and publish whatever he wants. But what I am also saying is that he was clearly attempting to enrage people with his writing and that he shouldn't be surprised by what the result was - whether it was right or not (it wasn't.)

[Geordieracer 0]

Have ANY of you actually read The Satanic Verses?

 

Why?

 

It seems the centre for debate and I wondered if any of you had read the subject of the argument, or at least since the argument transferred from the Mosque near ground zero debate.