Bullets 'n' Babes

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 11:55**

You know, it's fucking ironic that you're all so quick to criticise Rushdie when most of you share the exact same opinion on Islam (going by comments in other threads). It's clear in this thread that no one here has a fucking clue about Rushdie's work so really, who the hell are you lot to argue the knighthood? I'm not familiar with his work, but even I know he was a reasonably well known and extremely well recieved author long before The Satanic Verses made him an international figure.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 12:56**

Hey Shingster, How was he reasonably know, because before the Satanic verses, I didn't have a clue about him. Why can't we discuss why he should get a knighthood, Okay, lets pose another similar theory.

What happens if an author posted an indepth discussion on the holocaust, eg like Norman Finkelstein. You can bet this would never even being thought off to give him a knighthood.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 13:09**

Yeah, and David Irving. He was sent to jail.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 13:19**

slasher13 wrote:Hey Shingster, How was he reasonably know, because before the Satanic verses, I didn't have a clue about him. Why can't we discuss why he should get a knighthood, Okay, lets pose another similar theory.

I meant within literary circles, he won the Booker Prize in 1981. He's recieved his knighthood purely for his literary work, so how can we honestly discuss the merits of that decision when we all have absolutely no idea about what that body of work actually entails? Yeah you can speculate based on other people's opinion, but what's the point in holding an internet discussion when you can't even hold a viable opinion yourself?

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 14:38**

Markgway wrote: BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD

Markgway wrote:the fact that he cost Britain millions only to then clear off to America and disparage us from a distance.

Completely irrelavant. Sorry Mark but you always seem to forget what he's being knighted for. Unless you quit listening and start reading, you're in no position to say:

Markgway wrote: No, because it shouldn't have been given in the first place.

IMO.

Shingster wrote:You know, it's fucking ironic that you're all so quick to criticise Rushdie when most of you share the exact same opinion on Islam (going by comments in other threads). It's clear in this thread that no one here has a fucking clue about Rushdie's work so really, who the hell are you lot to argue the knighthood?

Well said Shingster.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 14:46**

Fair enough Shingster. Good point.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 15:02**

Haha I just realised the bad language in my original post now. Oops.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 15:11**

Thats why I didnt comment on the actual Knighthood, as hell I will never in my life even read one of his books, well unless I become a fanatic and want something to get worked up about

the only things I know about the man are few, like the fact people wanted him dead, badly! and he has a georgous wife (I think its him?).

I am just even on this thread becuase of the silly way the few people protested and acted, and the fact that really he costs UK tax payers sooo much cash with the hundreds of police it takes to herd him around the place.

I wouldnt read a book, never mind one by that guy

I will wait for the film

I wonder if there is still a hit price on Rushdies head? no one had the balls to get the cash from the one ages ago I guess, spinless fools

if they were that fanatical, they would blow him up and themselves, so obviously they cannot be that angry and not exactly angry like the odd one in a million suicide bombers.

The strange thing is from these Knighthoods this year I only remember 2 people getting anything, Rushdie and Ian Botham (only becuase he was around our way for the big cricket game). So the media seems to have focused entriley on Rushdie, and the mini backlash, what there is of it.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 15:25**

Wikipedia wrote:The Satanic Verses is Salman Rushdie's fourth novel, first published in 1988 and inspired in part by the life of Muhammad. The title refers to the Satanic Verses, a possible interpolation in the Qur'an described by Ibn Ishaq in his biography of Muhammad (the oldest surviving text). Some Islamic and most non-Muslim Western historians and commentators on the Qur'an have accepted this story of Muhammad's momentary acceptance of the verses. However, a common Muslim viewpoint is that the existence of the verses is just a fabrication created by non-Muslims. [1]

The novel caused much controversy upon its publication, as many Muslims felt that it contained blasphemous references. Singapore was the first country[citation needed] and India the second to ban the book. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, a Shi'a Muslim scholar, issued a fatwa that called for the death of Rushdie and claimed that it was the duty of every Muslim to obey.

On February 14, 1989, the Ayatollah broadcast the following message on Iranian radio: "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur'an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death."[2]As a result, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese language translator of the book was stabbed to death on July 11, 1991; Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month, and William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October of 1993. On February 14, 2006, the Iranian state news agency reported that the fatwa will remain in place permanently.[3]

In the United Kingdom, however, the book garnered great critical acclaim. It was a 1988 Booker Prize Finalist, eventually losing to Peter Carey's Oscar and Lucinda.

So yes the fatwa is still in place, and yes people did indeed "have the balls" to kill in the name of the order. What a shame that Ruhollah Khomeini died not long after issued the judgement. I would have taken great pleasure from seeing him brought to justice over it (not that it probably would have happened anyway).

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 15:42**

Crikey didnt know they went that far! go for the translators, not the man who wrote it, that seems a little silly to me, obviously not to them from the look of it.

I say he can say what he wants, others dont have to read it if they think its wrong. Killing over a book is a sign of how ignorant some people are and how messed up they are in the head.

Scary stuff mind you.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 16:00**

BiscLimpkit wrote:Completely irrelavant. Sorry Mark but you always seem to forget what he's being knighted for.

If literary 'genius' is the sole factor for determining who gets a "Sir" prefix then why not knight Stephen fucking King? The points I'm making are twofold: first, that in the discussion of Rushdie's knighthood that's being currently had, I've heard a lot more negative criticism of his work than positive, which casts doubt on his relative merits as a a writer; I'm not even taking The Satanic Verses controversy into account. Secondly, that these doubts and objections fly in the face of the government's ludicrous assertion that the majority of Britain is behind the knighthood. The majority of Britain doesn't care. It's the liberal elite of London who decided. As Boris Johnson pointed out last night on Question Time: why not knight John LeCarre? Or is he not trendy enough?

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 16:11**

As a result, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese language translator of the book was stabbed to death on July 11, 1991; Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month, and William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October of 1993.

It's a pity Khomeini wasn't assassinated before he could spout such evil filth. As long as scum like that represent the public face of Islam non-Muslims will continue to have fear in their hearts and doubt in their minds. I feel sorry for the ordinary non-hating Muslims whose voices are never heard and whom are thus tarred with the same negative brush. Is that the price to pay for staying silent?

On February 14, 2006, the Iranian state news agency reported that the fatwa will remain in place permanently.[3]

Come visit Iran. Kept just like it was in 1480, ah, the good old days. Enjoy our world renowned hospitality and stonings, but be careful not to say anything naughty about Islam, as we may fucking kill you and your infadel family. Bargain price £999.99 and a Donkey. Includes halal breakfast.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 16:21**

So yes the fatwa is still in place, and yes people did indeed "have the balls" to kill in the name of the order.

Thats an assumption, as they never did find out who killed Hitoshi Igarashi, it has not been resolved. Hitoshi Igarashi has also translated other islamic books

What a shame that Ruhollah Khomeini died not long after issued the judgement. I would have taken great pleasure from seeing him brought to justice over it (not that it probably would have happened anyway).

Judging from today state of play, there is no justice, otherwise, Bush and Blair would be in prison for going on an illegal war, which loads of civilians have died, and really corrupted a 2 countries, and they are not stopping..

By the way, you may also want to add in the following:

but the fatwa has also been attacked for violating the rules of fiqh by not allowing the accused an opportunity to defend himself, and because "even the most rigorous and extreme of the classical jurist only require a Muslims to kill anyone who insults the Prophet in his hearing and in his presence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini#_note-38

That is very important, and really not surprised that it wasn't mentioned, although the western media 'forgot' about this bit. So we can say that the fatwa is really not a fatwa, as its needs unity and has to be followed through by the rules of Islam.

Sorry but this is similar to the word Jihad, a word overused by the western media to promote fear

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 16:27**

Yeah, and don't get me started on what the bible preaches in terms of Christian way of "fatwa" and Christian way of "jihad".

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 16:28**

slasher13 wrote:Thats an assumption, as they never did find out who killed Hitoshi Igarashi, it has not been resolved. Hitoshi Igarashi has also translated other islamic books

And the attempted murders of the Italian translator/Norwegian publisher were just co-incidences right?

slasher13 wrote:Judging from today state of play, there is no justice, otherwise, Bush and Blair would be in prison for going on an illegal war, which loads of civilians have died, and really corrupted a 2 countries, and they are not stopping..

What a completely ridiculous comparison to make Slasher! Bush & Blair have never called upon their own people to murder a man in cold blood! Also, as your post points out Khomeini didn't even have sufficient religious cause to issue the judgement in the first place!

thelostdragon wrote:Yeah, and don't get me started on what the bible preaches.

What has this got to do with the argument in question? Let me get this right, the Bible has all manner of morally dubious concepts, so it's ok for Muslim leaders to demand that all followers kill a particular blasphemer on sight?

I'm not even attacking the religion of Islam! It's Khomeini I have the problem with! How can you even begin to try and defend his actions?

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 16:34**

Shingster wrote:Bush & Blair have never called upon their own people to murder a man in cold blood!

Instead they just sent hundreds of thousands of their people (be they soldiers or not) to do the same.

Both Khomeini and the Western alliance are scumbags for making millions of people suffer unnecessary pain.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 16:37**

Shingster wrote:What has this got to do with the argument in question? Let me get this right, the Bible has all manner of morally dubious concepts, so it's ok for Muslim leaders to demand that all followers kill a man who blasphemes on sight?

I'm not even attacking the religion of Islam! It's Khomeini I have the problem with!

I'm not disputing your argumentaion, Shing. Just aggreeing and supporting slasher's argumentation when he talked about the words Jihad and Fatwa being overused by the media and how they don't really lie to people, but only tell half of the stories.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 16:46**

Hey Shingster, this is getting interesting

, Remember lets keep it pleasant and no hard feeling, okay.. that done, now..!!

Edit: You edited your post, now I have to reply to more of them

And the attempted murders of the Italian translator/Norwegian publisher were just co-incidences right?

Possible... Its a case of we will never know

Shingster wrote:What a completely ridiculous comparison to make Slasher! Bush & Blair have never called upon their own people to murder a man in cold blood! Also, as your post points out Khomeini didn't even have sufficient religious cause to issue the judgement in the first place!

Thanks for reckonising the latter part

, Right Khomeini is a Shi`i Muslim cleric, there are big differences between Shia and Sunnis

Again mentioned

Khomeini was a marja al-taqlid, ("source of imitation") and important spiritual leader to many Shi'a Muslims.

Therefore he does not speak for me or any muslims I know (BTW I am a sunni muslim), so therefore what you have written is wrong as well, From the tone of what you have said, is that Khomeini told all of the muslims population to kill off a man in cold blood. I'm afraid this is extremely incorrect

Bush & Blair have never called upon their own people to murder a man in cold blood!

Really, so no soldier has killed civilians in Iraq, who have been ordered to by their superior? The following report is kinda wrong: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e13454.htm

Full report by Newsnight, BBC own website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs ... 859458.stm

Therefore in my eyes is yes, actually Busy/Blair have called their own people (soldiers) to murder man(civilians) in cold blood.

I'm not even attacking the religion of Islam! It's Khomeini I have the problem with! How can you even begin to try and defend his actions?

I'm not really defending him, I hope what I have written above makes sense, and hopefully give you food for thought, that muslims have different sect, so better to research and ask questions

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 17:08**

OK, when did this thread descend into "lets all defend Islam" you and LD are taking this waaaaaaaay off topic now slasher. Khomeini is being criticised, not Islam, so there really is no point bringing in Western or Christian analogies unless you actually want to defend Khomeini's actions. That is a crucial point in this discussion imo.

Therefore he does not speak for me or any muslims I know (BTW I am a sunni muslim), so therefore what you have written is wrong as well, From the tone of what you have said, is that Khomeini told all of the muslims population to kill off a man in cold blood. I'm afraid this is extremely incorrect

I could have worded it better, but I did indeed mean to emphasise that Khomeini ordered his own people, which is how I worded the Bush/Blair analogy.

Therefore in my eyes is yes, actually Busy/Blair have called their own people (soldiers) to murder man(civilians) in cold blood.

Yeah because a military leader giving a soldier an order is exactly the same as a religious leader demandng it from every single person of the same faith - civilians included.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 17:16**

Well, you said it: HIS OWN PEOPLE!

Well, I'm not one of his people, although I'm Muslim.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 17:19**

Shingster wrote:Khomeini is being criticised, not Islam, so there really is no point bringing in Western or Christian analogies unless you actually want to defend Khomeini's actions. That is a crucial point in this discussion imo.

Fair enough. But it seems you have totally ignored my post where I say that Khomeini was a scumbag to me.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 17:20**

Mark makes a good point too, you as may well make JK Rowling a Dame for writing the Harry fecking Potter books

Or Dan Brown for his books

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 17:21**

but I did indeed mean to emphasise that Khomeini ordered his own people

Noted!

So lets get this thread.. err back on track

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 17:24**

thelostdragon wrote:Fair enough. But it seems you have totally ignored my post where I say that Khomeini was a scumbag to me.

Which was the only relevent comment you've made in this thread. I didn't ignore it, I just addressed the fact that you appeared to be blanket-criticising Christianity for no good reason other than the fact someone on these forums has dared to criticise an individual Shia Muslim.

Posted: **22 Jun 2007, 17:30**

grim_tales wrote:Mark makes a good point too, you as may well make JK Rowling a Dame for writing the Harry fecking Potter books Or Dan Brown for his books

It wasn't a good point at all, as the intellectual "worthiness" of literary figures is not judged by how many books they sold, unless you actually want to argue that JK Rowling is more deserving of a literary award than say someone like Shakespeare or Dickens, or Tolstoy. Salman Rushdie has won one Booker prize and very nearly won another, that in itself speaks volumes of his literary achievements.

To use a film analogy: Would you argue that Sir Alfred Hitchcock didn't deserve his knighthood because Paul Anderson hasn't got one.

Bullets 'n' Babes

Salman Rushdie: Knighthood