In the mind of a Muslim, a writer who publishes a second-rate book that mocks Mohammed is the same as someone who blows up two skyscrapers and kills three thousand innocent people.At least that’s what one particular Muslim thinks. From today’s Daily Telegraph:
Muslim peer likens Rushdie to 9/11 hijackers
A Muslim peer compared Salman Rushdie to the September 11 hijackers yesterday as protests over the author’s knighthood escalated.
At Regents Park Mosque in London, demonstrators held up placards saying “May God curse the Queen” and one speaker said that should Tony Blair become an envoy in the Middle East he should be sent back “in a bag”.
The Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, who was interviewed in Le Figaro newspaper in France, added fuel to the row.
“This honour is given in recognition of services rendered to Great Britain,” he said. “Salman Rushdie lives in New York. He is a controversial man who has insulted Muslim people, Christians and the British. He does not deserve the honour.
“Two weeks ago Tony Blair spoke about constructing bridges with Muslims. What hypocrisy. What would one say if the Saudi or Afghan governments honoured the martyrs of the September 11 attacks on the United States?“ [emphasis added]
I’d like to say that such an attitude is rare among Muslims, but, sadly, I don’t think it is. One often reads of Muslims who disapprove of extremist Islamic violence, but…
Somehow, they can understand how righteous religious anger can force people to commit such acts.
And here’s something that’s not surprising:
- - - - - - - - - -
The protest at Regents Park was organised by Anjem Choudary, who also organised the protests against the publication in Denmark of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.
If The Satanic Verses can induce all this apoplexy, what will be the effect of the burning of Mohammed’s effigy tonight in Denmark? I hope the Danish embassies in Damascus and Tehran are beefing up their security right now.
As thousands of worshippers at Teheran University chanted “Death to the English,” Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, told them: “They have awarded him only because he insulted the prophet.
“In such a situation, awarding him means confronting 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. Britons should know that they are the losers in this matter.”
Do you hear that, Tony Blair, you lap poodle of Bush? What were you thinking of? Who wants to face the wrath of 1.5 billion Muslims?
In Pakistan, the national assembly unanimously passed a second resolution calling on Britain to revoke the knighthood and “apologise to the Islamic world” and the prime minister criticised Britain.
Shaukat Aziz said the knighthood had “hurt the feelings of Muslims”.
Consider the lengths our governments go to in order not to “hurt the feelings of Muslims”. Why bother? Why don’t we just surrender and start paying the jizyah right now? Such deeply-felt anguish will be assuaged by nothing less.
Alas, I don’t think this little set-piece is over just yet. Expect the British government to cave shortly and apologize to all of the 1.5 quadrillion offended Muslims in the known universe.
And will the knighthood be withdrawn? What do our British readers think?
11 comments:
It was "1.2 billion" last month.
They sure do act screwy in more ways than one.
If Muslims are really so upset about insults against their religion (as opposed to merely using them for pretexts to bully other people), we have a form of deterrence.
That is, for every Islamist atrocity, for every suicide bombing, for every spectacular massacre by al-Qaeda, unflattering remarks are made about Islam. The less Muslims can stand the insults, the more effective they are as a deterrent.
Blasphemy is an inherent human right. Yes, a right. If Islam cannot be criticized, it cannot be talked about in any meaningful way; instead, it would be portrayed as "the religion that dare not be named -- or mentioned". Will it get to the point where Muslims start riots against any discussion of Cthulhu lest it become a transparent code for discussion of Islam?
By the way, the very word "martyr" in the context used by Lord Ahmed would at least appear to be indirect encouragement of terrorism -- a criminal offense in the United Kingdom.
Lord Achmed of Rotherham you certainly know how to wave a red flag in front of a Yorkshire Bull Baron. I will make this short and sweet before I get too offensive. Lord Ahmed made his money out of a chain of fish and chip shops. I don't know what his citation was when they made him a lord but it certainly wouldn't be for services above and beyond the call of duty to the British Fish and Chip industry. Let me have a guess. I know the area well there used to be lots of Mine in that area Silverwood Treeton Dinnington Kiveton to name just 4, these were large mines employing several thousand men. They are all closed now. The Labor party in those days was financed mainly by the large unions especially the miners union. From your payslip was automatically deducted your Union dues. Included in the Union dues was payment for a political fund. This money was automatically payed to the labor party. You could contract out if you wanted too, but as the area was solid labor it very really happened. All this stopped when Maggie and her minions closed the mines. Since then labor have been having to find funding from elsewhere. The jowled baboon most likely got his lordship for for payments above and beyond the call of duty to the labor party. No it couldn't be, I am just being cynical, or could it.
A knighthood cannot be withdrawn except for a very few reasons such as treason, murder and the like. It is unlikely they'll withdraw it considering it seems likely it was given to him to elicit this precise reaction. Someone in the home office wanted this, or the court. Maybe even the Queen wanted this. Why, we can't know, but given the muslim propensity to go apeshit over the tiniest "insult" these days they had to know that giving a knighthood to Rushdie would be the equivalent of setting off a small nuke in mecca. If it's withdrawn I will print out this comment and eat it.
Of course Rushdie is more dangerous to Islam than 19 hijackers were to western civilization. Rushdie may be a lousy writer but he thinks. Thinking is forbidden in Islam. To have this book living in perpetuity slandering Islam day after day year after year with the potential to turn believers into apostates is a threat more horrendous than they can allow. First one thinker then many. One book then libraries full. All screaming that Islam is a fraud.
Part of the problem is that Islam seems unable to adapt to new ideas within its own frame of reference. One reason for the success of Chrisianity and Judaism is that they are able to adapt external ideas to their internal reference frame, usually with a lag of about a century, just long enough for fads to disappear but short enough that new ideas aren't permanently held as being opposed to the faith by those that hold them. And if the ideas don't fit, well, you can always have a schism...
Every other religion seems capable of internal dialogue and adaptation to new ideas. In this Islam is alone in being rigidly opposed to any sort if internal dialogue. Ideas can't flourish, and consequently Islam can't adapt. Any dissenting factions have been ruthlessly oppressed, and those that managed to survive are so completely unlike traditional islam as to be essentially completely different faiths, unlike the sects and factions of other religions, which are variations on their particular theme more than anything else.
Neither Allah nor Mohammad (at this point) is susceptible to any injury from any human. Blasphemy against either of them is not in the same category as injury to another living human. (I'm not addressing whether it requires similar punishment--that's another question.)
If you mock Allah, Muslims will sneer at you, or maybe even pity you.
If you mock Mohammad, they'll try to kill you.
Clearly an insult to Mohammad is more serious than an insult to Allah. So can we conclude from this which person Muslims esteem more?
Shall we call them Muhammadans, or is it impossible to agree on the spelling?
They are the weeds of this garden Earth, reproducing carelessly and bearing no fruit, choking off whatever is productive and fertile.
Thinking...rationality begins in humans at roughly age 8--the "age of reason". What happens when all thought, all rationality is filtered though the totality (totalitarian) of islamic doctrine.
So let's not forget that islam is not a religion (in the sense that we commonly agree on the meaning of that word) but rather a fixed and immutable doctrine on what to believe and how to live.
At least His Lordship is implicitly conceding that the 9/11 "martyrs" were Muslims, to be honored by the land of their origin or their organizational homebase. We should be grateful for even baby steps in the direction of objective reality.
Kelly-
"What would one say if the Saudi or Afghan governments honoured the martyrs of the September 11 attacks on the United States?“
That's not implied--it's explicit.
Of course the very peaceful 'Muslims' are justified for destroying the whole world over this. What? The Queen can't knight someone she likes? She can't knight someone that other people don't like?
But I'm sure Sir Rushdie has mixed emotions on this; the Queen has put him in much greater danger. Maybe he'll wish he had turned it down.
At least this incident will lose the terrorists at least a few more of their dhimmidiot appeasers.
Islam in it's extreme is more political ideology than religion. In that way, it is only a 'Religion of Peace' in that when Islam rules the planet, there will be no one to be at war with. Where they are given an inch, they demand a mile. Islamic countries are becoming more extreme, extremists rule, they just keep quoting the Koran to justify their Jihad.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
appease religious killers
continue to spoil them
violent tantrums pay off
.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.