Permalink

Latest at Huffington Post: Sigh, Defending Salman Rushdie...Again


By Ali Eteraz
Posted on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 03:14:56 PM EST
Tags: rushdie (all tags)

My latest is up at Huffington Post.

Man, this has been going on since I was a kid in Pakistan. Salman Rushdie does something; fundamentalist Muslims start burning stuff; start agitating for strikes; collecting money for the big pot that will go to the guy who cuts off his head.

When I was but a wee boy, seeing grown men hop around big bonfires, their eyelashes and beards singed from the flying embers, all agitated over a book that they hadn't even seen, much less read, was embarrassing. Now, 20 years later (the first Salman Rushdie riots were in 1987), it's just downright pathetic. This time Rushdie didn't even do anything; he just got knighted by the Queen (who herself doesn't choose the people who get knighted). As a result, Iranians and Pakistanis are getting worked up, this time demanding apologies from the British, reconfirming their desire to kill Rushdie, and organizing strikes.
So, once again, the response has to be direct and straight forward: no compromise on freedom of conscience; no compromise on freedom of expression; no compromise on freedom of speech. Forget if people's religious sensibilities are hurt. They will have to get over it and live with it like all the rest of us whose sensibilities are assailed by burning tires, burning cars, strikes, and demagoguery.
Continue Reading.

< Beauty | An Important Clarification and a Question >

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Tags: rushdie (all tags)
Display: Sort:

Latest at Huffington Post: Sigh, Defending Salman Rushdie...Again | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)
thoughts(none / 0) (#1)
by Saliha Shah on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:38:32 PM EST

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the decision to knight Rushdie. He's an average writer at best, and if Muslims would stop losing their minds every time his name is mentioned, he would probably disappear into obscurity. Nobel material he is not. Britain confers a completely useless honor on a completely useless author, and so much energy is wasted protesting it. And the death threats etc are completely unacceptable. Its quite disheartening to see how screwed up our priorities are, and you are very right to point out the complicity of Muslim governments in this whole situation.

I think there should be plenty of room for artistic expression, but there are limits on freedom of expression in every society (as has been mentioned earlier around here). Although the lines in American jurisprudence are badly drawn about what's acceptable and what's not, the lines are there, as blurry as they might be. Similarly, Muslim countries are free to come up with their own lines. What I dont understand is how Muslims can demand of a country where they have no jurisdiction, no authority, that they conform to Muslim lines of what's acceptable and what's not. I love Steven Colbert's bit on this - whenever he mentions the Prophet Mohammad, he has to add "peace and blessings be upon him" as a mockery of the pressure that nonMuslims are supposed to feel to conform to Muslim sensibilities. Its even more ridiculous considering all the mocking that goes on in the Muslim world of the West.





let everyone shout(none / 0) (#2)
by osmandin on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:45:44 PM EST

How about granting the freedom of expression to the other<u> </u>party?  So what if mullahs and other emotional people lodge protests?  <u>Violence</u> must be condemned, but just because X gets angry & summons British diplomats doesn't mean we should condemn their condemnation. And why are we watching them that intensly anyway? All this anti-caliphate, anti-Islamist, anti-terrorism protesting shows that we ourselves have got nothing better to focus on.



how far?(none / 0) (#3)
by Daniel Haar on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 06:13:09 PM EST

When the Pujab Assembly's speaker says he'd kill Rushdie if he saw him, I think we must speak out.  Here's a leader of one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, and he's saying it's okay to take the law into one's own hands and kill someone you think is a "blasphemer."  This is ridiculous -- though British troops left Pakistan 60 years ago, they are obviously still marching in the minds of these idiots.  They are sooooooo sad that Mama Lizzy teh Queen has awarded a bad man they don't like and are now throwing a hissy fit.  Who cares?  Britain is not Pakistan.  Pakistan doesn't honor Rushdie. That is their decision.  Why do these idiots care who Britain honors?



[ Parent ]
a fool for a fool(none / 0) (#4)
by osmandin on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:30:29 PM EST

They say 'idiotic' things because their grievance is that the West is indifferent towards their sentiments. They believe that the Western society finds a way to attack their religion and culture. Whether their view is true, no one can deny that their suscipicion has some foundation in history and  reality. They also fail to understand why the British authorities would bestow the honor to a fellow they think is a controverisal figure. How would an ordinary American Muslim react to a Nobel nomination for Daneil Pipes? On top of that, the people in that region are fundametally emotional. They have a different way of thinking/reacting out there. It doesn't mean anything (at least in this context). The people there just don't realize that Salman Rushdie (or his work/ or the empty title of knighthood) is inconsequential. There are extremsits, surely, but I'm talking about the general public that we criticize everytime they protest about something. I do think that if Rushdie has the right to produce satricial commentary/farce, then these people should be allowed to talk about him as they wish. No double standards, please.

 

 



[ Parent ]
i think (none / 0) (#6)
by Saliha Shah on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:45:26 PM EST
you are right that muslims should have the same freedom of speech that rushdie et al should have, and if they are offended, they should be allowed to make their feelings known. (whether they should be offended is a separate issue). the problem is in their way of protesting; threats of violence are never acceptable. 

[ Parent ]


the other thing(none / 0) (#7)
by Saliha Shah on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:59:33 PM EST

is that muslims unite over the dumbest things - cartoons, knighthood - issues that gain legitimacy the more they are focused on. suddenly everyone becomes a champion for islam. meanwhile, on real issues there is little to no action.



[ Parent ]


indeed(none / 0) (#8)
by Daniel Haar on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 09:07:56 PM EST

Everyone does have the right to criticize Rushdie till the cows come home, at least I believe so.  Of course it's an endless cycle, we have the right to criticize those who criticize those who criticize those who criticize...

Anyway, to all those who think Britain is awful and horrible by knighting this "nasty atheist," don't think this is somehow specially designed to attack Islam -- they've been honoring anti-Christians too.  Shelley, the famous Romantic poet, who was kicked out of Oxford for writing the Necessity of Atheism, has a shrine in the Poet's Corner of Westminster Cathedral, one of the most prominent churches of the Church of England.  That's sorta like giving Rushdie a Shrine in Qom.



[ Parent ]




Then again(none / 0) (#5)
by anaeem on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:37:32 PM EST
I understand your desire to speak out against the Punjab Assembly speaker, but I think osmandin's point is that this is the kind of base rhetoric which even western government officials commonly engage in.  For instance, republican presidential candidate and congressman Tom Tancredo called for the conditional nuking of Mecca, how much press coverage did that get? and it certainly hasn't come up in republican debates. Irrespective, I would never support Tancredo (even before the comment), but I also wouldn't allow myself to use Tancredo's comments as fodder the way Rushdie has been used to further the clash of civilizations model.  

[ Parent ]
I hear you there(none / 0) (#9)
by Daniel Haar on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 09:16:11 PM EST

It is crazy that more people, across the political spectrum, do not denounce the lunacy of Tancredo.  He is a xenophobe and a racist.

If enough Muslims denounced the crazies everytime they preached fire and brimstone, then the Islamophobe right would have no ammunition for their witchhunts.  I think it is necessary that we, as a Muslim community, speak for moderation and tolerance, and speak against intolerance, whether from a Colorado congressman or a Punjabi speaker.



[ Parent ]
value of 3rd party protesting(none / 0) (#10)
by osmandin on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 09:46:48 PM EST

We need to speak for moderation, but this discourse has to come mainly from the people over there -- not from folks here.  A) it's unproductive. B) it's artificial/odd. Who cares what is written at these websites. Who cares in Pakistan about what Tariq Ramadan or Hamza Yusuf, for example, thinks about European Islam? 

I agree with the statement that there's a problem with the violent way of protesting. Unfortunately, that situation cannot be changed so easily. It's the way of life over there. People kill eachother over petty things. If one started protesting about things in Pakistan, one would go mad.  

Our job here should be educating Americans or Europeans over here about the cultural and religious senstivities of the Muslims abroad. I think that's more productive than passing  comments that serve no one but highlight the intolerant side of Muslims.

By criticizing on criticizing on critizicing on. . . we are merely creating unncessary disagreement between ourselves... and wasting our attention on meaningless journalistic/literary personality parades. There are other issues on the table. We talk about reform. But I don't think that we have made much progress.

 

 

 



[ Parent ]










Latest at Huffington Post: Sigh, Defending Salman Rushdie...Again | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)

Display: Sort: