Rushdie and the British Establishment

#32 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 19, 2007 9:12:52 am

ok..in that case, whenever the israelis take over pali land or do something bad to arabs, I'll be asking about the root cause of why the israelis were forced to do what they did. What's sauce for the goose and all that. The root cause thing cuts both ways. I'm sure the Israelis will say that pali terrorism justifies their land-grab wall.

Either you think people blowing up subways or flying planes into buildings is wrong or you don't. You can't have it both ways. If you think it's wrong, the justification shouldn't matter. Once you start accepting some justification, you're on a slippery slope. I'm sure the sunni bomber who kills a bunch of shias has some root cause he completely believes in.

Justification is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm sure the 15 relatively well off saudis who flew planes into buildings thought they had some just cause. I'm sure the british born and raised brit-pakis who blew themselves up in subways completelty believed in their cause.

Hi Arjun,

I am of Indian origin and a card carrying member of the VHP. I have noticed your interacts across various posts on chowk and cant decide whether you are one person or a group of persons. But one thing I am sure of and that is you must be an ISI plant.

You (all) are always among the first to attack any muslim poster, and your theme is always anti-muslim - "islamofascists" or like. Even when serious discussion is taking place, you tend to trivialize it and start straight away on a communal theme. And it is so consistent that is why I believe that you must be an ISI plant out to destroy whatever dialog is attempted.


On one hand I could tell you - let it go, look around you and see what is happening to the 2 nation theory. Just do not keep justifying it by your diatribes.

Do not let echo and zee rile you so much. Take the high road.

Just a friendly advice on the off chance you are not a ISI plant.

giani

#31 Arjun

Wrong analogy there Arjun. We are talking about political cause and effect. Where a well oiled overwhelmingly strong military and economic force exerts its will on a weaker foe. The resistance from the weaker foe will be asymetrical. And by that, one means, gurilla style, no formal military, going after targets usually not acceptable in direct conflict etc etc.

I beleive all war and violence is wrong. So symmetrical or asymmetrical, both are wrong. However, one can see when a response arises, why it will arise, and how it will take place.

You are an intelligent guy (have read many of your interacts), don't let emotions blind you all the time.

--thinking

#27 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 18, 2007 11:59:04 am


we should not ignore the reasons that come after the "but" either.


BS...do you care about the root cause when a man rapes a women? Do you say "what he did was bad but he probably was too poor to get a real date"? I'm guessing not...

overall this is a good thing. if knighthood is not about provocating muslims but purely literary, its a good thing to have a muslim knight. if its a challange to "muslims", thats great too. this will cause a discussion..and may the best argument win. sure there will be some bombings, but they will be there anyhow methinks.

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/muslim-fundamentalists-suffering-from-col onized-mentality/

Muslim Fundamentalists Suffering From Colonized Mentality

If the hardliners hate Rushdie, they shouldn't really give a flying
f*ck whether he gets knighted, abducted by aliens, or anally probed.
Yet the fundos care very much about all those when it comes to
Rushdie. Why? Get a life, you freaking losers. He doesn't like you.
Not only that, but he actually left the faith you both once shared.
He dislikes you that much. Stop acting like a stalking ex-boyfriend
and leave him alone. The best revenge --- if that is what you want
--- is to ignore him, not keep having ejaculations every time you
hear about him. That just gives him more power over you. You'd know
all these things if you ever dated, but of course, since you forbid
that too, you have no idea how to play mind games with your exes. So
you just keep agitating to kill your ex

#22 Harish, #23 Folio
Harish, exactly my point as well. I fear that the majority will suffer immensely due to inaction. The overall picture is more complicated however. When Arjun says that the majority says "BUT"...we should not ignore the reasons that come after the "but" either.

Overall though, freedom of speech is not so free in US and UK either. Having said that however, understanding the chess game that is taking place in world politics is much better then being outraged or offended :).

Moeed is right that the Knighthood itself is a chess move, challenging the disgruntled muslim youth. The British are worried that thier identity will be taken away (having listened to one raving mullah in UK, I don't blame the White British for thinking what they think), but at an even higher level...this is an intricate dance of cause and effect.

We may not be able to change other people's minds, but we can certainly change our own. I am willing to listen to all sides :).

-thinking

Without debating Rushdie's literary abilities, the selection process,
whether or not one should give a flying fart about GBEs, OBEs and
other fanciful orders of the British Empire, etc. etc., just one
little comment on the freedom of speech bit.

If, to many, Islamic or sharia law seems to squelch speech that is
subversive of Islam, British law on freedom of speech also seems to be
inconsistent to some Muslims. This freedom of speech, which is based
on individual autonomy and self-governance, isn't quite as absolute as
one would believe. Critics who wish to point out this as hypocrisy,
have quoted the British government's ban on the film based on the real
life of the Saudi princess who was executed for committing adultery
(after pressure from the Saudi royal family), the temporary ban on the
Pakistani film, International Guerrillas, whose protaganist is a
dissolute drunk (supposedly Rushdie) and whose life ends when he is
struck by lightning, the cancellation by the Royal Court Theatre of
the play Perdition, to list a few. These do not provide sufficient
ethical justification for a ban on any of Rushdie's books, in my mind,
but it was a pov I read, interestingly enough, in a legal journal (and
I do not know if they were/are sufficient as legal precedents).

I am all for Freedom of Speech and unequivocally against
Off-With-His-Head Fatwas but the reality is even in liberal democratic
nations, blasphemy laws exist today. Look at this law in existence in
Massachusetts:
http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm

Where is the right balance? Is there not subjectivity intrinsically
involved with words like "wilfully"?

Rushdie is a pretty annoying guy to lots of people (including me, at least
every other week or so.). But with all that's going on, why should a
meaningless rank conferred on him by an arguably has-been country cause any
kind of heartburn (I mean, 'pretty damn provocative' is a bit strong, no?)
in sensible people who presumably have better things to do with their
emotional energy?

#22 Posted by harish_hyd on July 18, 2007 3:01:52 am

I know I may be ridiculed 4 this; my guestimation is this:

10% downright free souls. They had no inhibitions abt their freedom

30% kinda liberal but fear orthodoxy and God/Mullahs and society.

40% overtly religious and mildly extremist. These ppl justify the terrorism of the loonies.

15% Extremits but Azizists i.e cowards but pretend to be bloodhounds.

5% Ready to explode extremists.

(Now I am ready to be lashed for this).

#11 by thinkingstorm

Look, I am a muslim and I respect other religions. Including Hinduism and Judaism.

Yaar thanks for clarifying, but the problem is that the 0.00000001 percent of Muslims are much more vocal than the 99.99999999 percent, and this minority is much more capable of perpetrating violence and bloodshed than the majority is capable of preventing.

#20 well said Kulharee (clapping icon here)

The Book “Last Temptation of Christ” is by Nikos Kazantzakis, written in early 50s, who also wrote other works that did not fare well with the clergy. Scorsese only directed the movie and shouldn’t be credited with the literary work.

I think muslims thinkers and muslim world in general should be concerned more about lifting themselves out of misery than worrying about Knighthoods. A poor moron without access to clean drinking water protesting over Rushdie affair comes across as a stupid poor moron.

God, muslims are so sensitive.

Moeed Pirzada Sahib: So this minor problem of viewing non-muslims as eternally burning in Hell (the converse of martyrdom/jihadism (Shahadat)) boils down to "identity crisis"? Interesting.

RE: #17
Mahfouz fortunately survived a brutal attack on his life by the usual suspects:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Death threats against Mafouz followed, including one from the "blind sheikh," Egyptian theologian Omar Abdul-Rahman. Like Rushdie, Mahfouz was given police protection, but in 1994 Islamic extremists almost succeeded in assassinating the 82-year-old novelist by stabbing him in the neck outside his Cairo home. He survived, permanently affected by damage to nerves in his right hand. Subsequently, he lived under constant bodyguard protection."

Naguib Mahfouz link on Wikipedia

ts,
that's right, and will state again as I have in the past, that Mahfouz, Edward Said, the Abu-Lughods, Eqbal Ahmed were staunch defenders of Rushdie's right to have written TSV. If I'm not mistaken, Mahfouz had challenged Ayotallah Khomeini's fatwa to which some fundamentalists opined that they should have killed Mahfouz first-he would not have fathered Rushdie.

Sure, the Queen knighted Rushdie. But she's also recognized Harry Potter...which has not been received well by the Church...lets see how they react....

#15 neembu

Unfortunately Najeeb Mahfouz passed away not that long ago. Brilliant writer and film director.