Â
Salman Rushdie has been a controversial character for Muslims for nearly twenty years now. His book ‘Satanic Versus' drew a death sentence from Iran's former spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni. The Iranians, when under their reformist leadership of Khatami, had previously stated the matter should be considered closed. However; ‘The military organisation, loyal to Iran's supreme leader, said the order was "irrevocable", on the eve of the anniversary of the 1989 fatwa.'
Now that Rushdie has been ‘Knighted' by Queen Elizabeth II, the controversy from nearly twenty years ago has resurfaced. While some rhetoric and further threats were to be expected, clerics and traders in Pakistan are taking this issue to another level.
The traders are publicly offering 10 million Rupees ($165,000 dollars) for anyone who beheads Rushdie, while Islamic scholars have bestowed a top honor on Osama bin Laden of ‘Salifullah' (Sword of Allah). This is effectively condemning a writer to death while praising a murder of thousands. While the extremists may not be the majority in Islam, where are the moderate voices denouncing such actions?
Pakistan's leader Musharraf's control of his country is sketchy at best, and the threat of him being overthrown is a very real possibility. A nuclear armed country in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists is a terrifying thought, more so however for their nuclear neighbors. It was not that long ago that India and Pakistan were edging towards yet another war, and the collapse of Musharraf's regime would more than likely take them back to the brink.
In light of the events of the past 5-6 years, was the ‘Knighting' of Rushdie a good idea? Should Britain have held off on this honor instead of adding yet another log to the fire? For all intensive purposes by not doing so would been conceding to their extremism, and placating irrational thought and behavior. While this initial backlash may just ‘pass' without any real ‘action', was his Knighthood worth the possibility of reprisals against other Britain's and/or Westerners. Or even the possible spark that could lead to the overthrow of the Pakistani government?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 42
He is a brilliant writer who has contributed substantially to the culture and political landscape of Britain. He was knighted in recognition of his accomplishments as an artist and humanitarian, and deservedly so.
Americans like to make a lot of blather about not letting the terrorists "win" by changing our lives to accomodate their lunacy. Why should the British be any different?
I overheard them speak and I was shocked to find out that that they were native born African American. I really do not understand why women would volunteer to enslave themselves to this 2nd class lifestyle.
J.B.
Obviously you were offending by my observation. I really am not sure why. Also you making gratuitous assumptions that these ladies were being "leered" I am not sure where you are drawing that conclusion since you were not there.
1st of all, Burkas just like Islamofacism originates not from the Koran but a primitive, desert culture which advocates women as chattel or property. Women are denied basic human rights. i.e., honor killings, women can not appear in public w/ out a male escort ect. Islamofacism advocates intolerance of others and relegates women to status of a slave. My only question is why would a native born American female volunteer to be part of this subculture where they are denied basic human rights.
There is a difference between opposing terrorism and radical Islam and being intolerant of all Muslims. I think the peaceful practice of one's spiritual beliefs, no matter what religious practice you ascribe to, is a beautiful thing.
You cannot tell, from an overheard conversation in passing, whether or not the women you describe were "native born Americans" or not. Regardless, it is their decision if they choose to wear the burqa or not, and for you to include their modest religious practice in the same breath as "Islamofascism" says much about how intolerant you are.
I believe you are confusing a burka w/ a hijab. This is a poor analogy. A hijab and a yarmulke would be a better analogy.
"She has embraced that as part of her religion, and your attention to the ladies at the mall probably felt like "leering" to them, if they noticed you observing them"
This is your personal opinion only. Unless you were there or you spoke w/ the ladies you do not know.
"There is a difference between opposing terrorism and radical Islam and being intolerant of all Muslims."
I agree.
"You cannot tell, from an overheard conversation in passing, whether or not the women you describe were "native born Americans" or not."
Sure you can. An accent tells a lot about a person, i.e., place of origin, culture.
"it is their decision if they choose to wear the burqa or not, and for you to include their modest religious practice"
Wearing a Burka is not considered a Modest religious practice. Again, I believe you are confusing this w/ a Hijab. Please research topic before discussing further.
"says much about how intolerant you are."
This says much about how judgmental you are. You are too quick to judge and condemn with out knowing all the facts.
I do agree the Rushdie deserved the honors, and that Britain should not make decisions based on the reactions of the radicals. The 'cartoon controversy' was another example of radicalism going too far, and many did bend in that instance. Although it was different, it was in many ways just a foretelling…
You definitely get it!!
Was she wearing this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42206000/jpg/_42206248_niqab.jpg
While attempting to read it I realized that had those fanatics simply remained silent, the book would have slipped beneath the waves and vanished without a trace. It was essentially unreadable. It made absolutely no sense whatever. While I am an avid reader I finally gave up trying to finish it about half way through. There is no way I could have suspended my disbelief to the point I would find a story credible that involves two people falling to their deaths from 32,000 feet calmly carrying on a conversation. First off they wouldn't breathe much less talk at that altitude. And it goes downhill from there.
The reason Rushdi's book did so well was the very hype generated by the death threat. I remember a guy stopping me in the airport and asking me if I had actually managed to read that book. My answer was no. It is largely unreadable.
Nick,
You are correct
Let me just say this: both the "burka" and the "hijab" are worn by Muslim women for the purpose of remaining modest in public. The difference is not so great, except that one covers more of the face.
You might want to think some more about why you feel entitled to freely look upon a woman' entire face when she would prefer you to look only at her eyes, and why you think this is somehow "oppresive" towards the woman in question.
You are correct"
"Wearing a Burka is not considered a Modest religious practice. Again, I believe you are confusing this w/ a Hijab. Please research topic before discussing further."
If I am correct, then you are not since that is a niqab, not a burqa. There is a major difference since the burqa is largely limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan, to a lesser extent. There's an old habit in the West of confusing like terms as equal terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" or "terrorist" and "insurgent" (when it comes to Iraq). Same applies with "niqab" and "burqa". Niqab has the slit for eye holes while burqa uses a mesh covering over the eyes, which restricts vision greatly.
Also, it is a form of Islamic modesty. Hijab is required for all adult men and women while wearing the niqab is viewed as recommended, something that is rewarded by God.
"This says much about how judgmental you are. You are too quick to judge and condemn with out knowing all the facts."
It's funny because you did just that a little while earlier:
"My only question is why would a native born American female volunteer to be part of this subculture where they are denied basic human rights."
You know absolutely nothing about these two women and their politics and their views on their religion and how it should play into their everyday lives. Instead, you take a simple glimpse of them in the mall and conclude that because of what they wear, then they must be radicals.
So tell me, what basic human rights were they denied? The right to be leered at by men? But what they gained from wearing the niqab is the right to be viewed as a person, something with thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, etc.
Have you ever actually talked to a niqabi or hijabi? Have you ever wondered why they might choose to wear something that shields them (their words) from leering men?
"One woman, Sajida Khaton, 24, interviewed as she sat discreetly in a Pizza Hut, said she did not wear the veil on the subway, a precaution her husband encourages for safety reasons. Sometimes, she said, she gets a kick out of the mocking.
" 'All right gorgeous,' " she said she had heard men say as she walked along the street. "I feel empowered," she said. "They'd like to see, and they can't.""
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/world/europe/22veil.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=world&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
When seeing niqabis and talking to them, an immense feeling of pride resonates from the woman because of what she wears.
"Please research topic before discussing further."
Indeed.
My apologies..some things spell check just does not catch :(
It was not my intention to include all Iranians or even Pakistani's for that matter into these groups of radicals. Which was part of the reason I included a reference to Khatami's attempt to close the matter.
After the extremist were driven out of Afghanistan, I am not sure if that conclusion would still stand, if it was even entirely accurate at that point. Unfortunately I believe Pakistan is at risk of being over taken by the radicals.
I am not sure how much influence Bush has had on the state of affairs there, other than the US driving the Taliban/Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into the remote areas Pakistan. But then again, that may have been enough to tip the delicate balance in that country.
Bent: The Taliban is regaining a foothold because we siphoned off our troops before the job was done so he could have two failed wars rather than one successful one.
Carolyn, I own all of Salman Rushdie's books. He is one of my favorite authors, and "Midnight's Children" is one of my favorite novels of all time. What's your point?
Nick P.
Never said this. Please re- read comments and try again.
"So tell me, what basic human rights were they denied? The right to be leered at by men? But what they gained from wearing the niqab is the right to be viewed as a person, something with thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, etc."
Not sure where you are going w/ this one.
J.B.
This is a classic "Reductio Ad Absurdum" argument. This is where you take an opponents argument and lead it to an absurd conclusion.
"Let me just say this: both the "burka" and the "hijab" are worn by Muslim women for the purpose of remaining modest in public. The difference is not so great, except that one covers more of the face."
If this is true then why is Holland which is one of the most liberal and progressive countries in the world considering banning the burka but not the hijjab.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/10/netherlands-considering-muslim-burka.php
"Islamofacism advocates intolerance of others and relegates women to status of a slave. My only question is why would a native born American female volunteer to be part of this (Islamofacism) subculture where they are denied basic human rights."
"I do not have much tolerance for extreme Islam. I was in the mall today and I saw two ladies wearing Burkas. "
Since you don't separate your posts into paragraphs, I can only assume that you are continuing a single thought process. So you are talking about extreme Islam and Islamofacism and then you delve right into the two ladies, clearly linking the two together.
About Pakistan nuclear weapons falling in the hands of radicals, I sincerely doubt it. There is an extremist's element in the military, but mainly in lower ranks. The higher post is much more aligned with the west. The nuclear facilities are very highly guarded and I do not see them falling in the hands of radicals.
If you look at Pakistan from '99 to '07, you will see that the country have made radical progress when it comes to politics, media, economy and democracy. Comparing it with Middle East, Pakistan has made progress as a Muslim country and people in general want to take control of the country, who in majority is moderates. So, even though the situation may look tense, I think significant progress is ahead in the country, but as long as situation in Afghanistan and Iraq are bad, the overall situation will remain murky in front of everyone.
Nick,
I will try and clarify. The Burka represents too many in the west as a symbol of radical Islam since it is Required clothing in societies where Shariah law and radical Islam applies. However, this does not mean that everyone wearing a Burka is an Islamofacist.
To clarify my feelings on the burka I will provide a quote from Bina Shah a noted Muslim writer.
"to some extent, the burqa represents everything that is negative and feared and hated about our Eastern world - a woman who's cloaked and covered, bound and gagged. Hidden from the world, removed from opportunities, kidnapped from her future. Burqas represent dead ends, lost hopes, silenced voices"
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000732&channel=gulberg&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1
For further clarification I will refer you to Steve Y comments made on June 21st 8:20pm EDT.
When you squeeze a complex situation like of Pakistan, it will appear as you make it want to be. Point I am trying to make is that you have look and understand the situation of surroundings to know what is going on in Pakistan. There are two kinds of struggle going on in Pakistan; first are moderates versus the extremists and second is of democracy and political harmony. The first problem is mainly ignited by the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and have affected majority of Muslim countries. Now that America is coming to realization that they have not only mismanaged the war but also lost it, it will make them and the west to re-think their strategy to how to coup with the aftermath.
After 7 plus years, Mushrraff has run out of fuel and support from people. They now believe in election, which is evident with protest. Something that west would like to see in Muslim countries, people, media are openly criticizing the government and it is most likely that election is next.
Most of the ungoverned regions that you are referring to are not use to any governance and there is no secret of that. If you know the history of sub-continent, you will know that British or others were not able to govern them. Their non-governance is not a threat to the region or Pakistan.
Let me try to explain Mushrraff government, he is mainly aligned with PML (Q), which is part or division of another major party of Pakistan PML (N), N is for Nawaz Sharrif who was ousted by Mushrraff. This party and other in his coalition are distancing themselves from him and no one is openly advocating him to remain President and Chief of Army Staff. This is the major reason I see Pakistan entering new phase of political and democratic era.
About nuclear doubts, first of all major political parties in Pakistan are democratic and secular. It is quite evident from Pakistan's political history that extremist parties do not win more than 5% of the votes. It is just recently that MMA, coalition of religious parties showed improvement, but it was mainly because of 9/11. Right now recent polls and trends of political parties show that people and the elected government of Pakistan is not going to be like that of Hezbollah or Hamas, otherwise those parties would not be major in the country, which are PPP, PML (Q), PML (N) and MQM. All of these parties are against coalition of religious parties and it unlikely that the alliance can defeat the major parties in any election; they do not have the constituency.
Military of Pakistan is always with the west, whether it is during communism, Soviet or 'war on terror'. I think most of the Pakistanis no matter how divided do not believe that in any way that their nuclear arsenal is going into the hand of extremists. They know that it is a deterrent to India and if they make it as if the case with Iran, their arsenal is in jeopardy. It is long shot that with the arsenal being guarded by United States, ISI and Pakistani military is going to fall into hands of any religious nut job. Moreover, United States knows that very well that they need the military to fight against terrorists.
What I see is that Pakistan is in the middle of storm, as you mentioned train wreck waiting to happen, my argument is that it is not mainly because of people or government rather circumstances. With Afghanistan and Iraq entering new era of civil war, 2005 earth-quake to cyclone in Karachi, plus the case against Chief Justice and every increasing confrontation between moderates and extremists, things do look bad. My point is it is unlikely that train wreck would result in nuclear arsenal going into hands of extremists to civil war in Pakistan. I would say that from now on, whether it is Mushrraff government or someone else, you can not negotiate with Pakistan by talking with one person only, which was the routine of past.
Iranian Family wins reprieve after allegedly housing The Satanic Verses
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977409038