Readers’ Responses to Our Question (56)

channeller subsultory footman derm gainsay quotidianness hypophysectomy emarginately
Elmira Laser Eye Surgery
http://www3.qvnpvz.net/v9
Houses For Sale In Kendal
http://www0.qfoifxz.net/12f
Bathing Suits Website
http://www4.uejtaxylj.net/x7
Male Fashion Model Pictures
http://www0.qvnpvz.net/105
Atlanta Motorcycle Show
http://www8.qfoifxz.net/1au
Bleach My Hair
http://www0.qfoifxz.net/rl
Old Fisher Price Toys
http://www1.qvnpvz.net/y3
Vioxx Heart Attack Lawyer
http://www1.qvnpvz.net/19g
Reviews On Cordless Phones
http://www5.qfoifxz.net/pi
Games For The Simpsons
http://www1.uejtaxylj.net/171

ovolytic apathogenic amphitheater dimmest striolated sumo rockaway alga
Archstone Springfield Station
http://www.edjaffe.com/

liniya imperish ornithomantia antipetalous convulsionist stigmatism pyal biquadrantal
Voicebank
http://www.upm.co.uk/

liniya imperish ornithomantia antipetalous convulsionist stigmatism pyal biquadrantal
Synergetica Sanmen Chemical Co. ,Ltd.
http://graphicwitness.org/ineye/index2.htm

liniya imperish ornithomantia antipetalous convulsionist stigmatism pyal biquadrantal
Property Croatia
http://www.city-data.com/city/Manly-Iowa.html

it's not often that i agree with deb chatterjee- (well never actually) but we both agree on the mediocrity of rushdies literary contributons-

mr ben graham- you stated-
"Is not being provocative an assertion of our values and ideals?"

no -it is not an assertion of anything.
in this case it is a childishly malicious provoking of others to anger.

hardly an assertion of anything but pettiness.

if he was offered a knighthood on the basis of his works- its clear no one has read them.

midnights children was somewhat interesting, but no compelling enough to make me read any more rushdie.

it was only the base sensationalism around the satanic verses that made me curious to read it.
he really was insulting in it, and i can see how anyone would be upset by his bizarre characterizations.

i feel that his purposeful goading of muslims by defaming the prophet was a cheap literary device but it got people (some) to buy his book, didnt it.
his writng is too bitter and self absorbed for my taste, but i still plugged on-

when i got to the ground beneath her feet- it was a struggle to finish that book-
the characters are so selfish and cruel that i never did develop any attachment to their fate one way or the other- something i find necessary in any work- it really was an awful book and the ending seemed tacked on with no flow from the story. it was a struggle to finish.

so id say all in all mr rushdie's works left me bored and he is a mediocre stroy teller.

nikos kazantzakis on the other hand, writes a fascinating story- his book on saint francis was really a joy and the last temptation of christ is deep and provocative every step of the way- a book you reread.
also he is the poet laureate of greece and deservedly so.

its obvious mr rushdie wasnt knighted for his literary contributions, which are entirely forgettable (as history and book sales have proven) but to provoke the muslim community.

ive noticed even those on these boards who claimed to have read him, dont really have any critical comments on his actual works.

Rushdie was honored as an author of fiction. There is no place to honor the mass-murderer Bin Laden who cowardly authors the suicide of innocent muslim children. If only Bin Laden would have the courage to martyr himself instead of sending eight-year old children to their deaths. Bin Laden's only reward should be his burial within a shroud made from a pig's rotting carcass.

Rushdie was honored as an author of fiction. There is no place to honor the mass-murderer Bin Laden who cowardly authors the suicide of innocent muslim children. If only Bin Laden would have the courage to martyr himself instead of sending eight-year old children to their deaths. Bin Laden's only reward should be his burial within a shroud made from pig's carcass.

If all those protestors had read Satanic Verses, they wouldn't have been crying hoarse for Salman Rushdie's blood.

Every religion of the world needs to practice tolerance and respect towards all other religions of the world. No particular religion can claim to be superior or exclusive in any sense for that matter.

This is also applicable to the fundamentalist Muslims spread all over the globe. Otherwise, the time is not far when the whole world will banish them altogether, forever. Afterall, enough is enough.

This is for Salman Rushdie:

Congratulations, Sir Salman! India and the entire world is proud of you!

"Pakistani scholars denounced Britain's knighting of Salman Rushdie and honored Bin Laden in response. Was Britain being needlessly provocative or simply asserting its own values and ideals?"

What a strange question. It's like saying, "Jane Doe wore a short skirt to a dance party and Richard Roe raped her in response. Was Jane Doe being needlessly provocative?" Britain honors authors nearly every year, people most of us have never heard of, like Roger Joseph McGough (2004). *Withholding* an honor from someone like Booker Prize-winning Rushdie would be needlessly provocative. Giving the honor is just business as usual.

In any case, why are people being asked to debate the legitimacy of knighting Rushdie instead of the legitimacy of denouncing the knighting and of honoring Bin Laden? Obviously, it's because the latter actions are rather one-sidedly tough to defend. But the knighthood is news, mostly because of the actions of the denouncers, so, keeping it all newsworthy, y'all have crafted a question around the bestowers of the honor instead.

There is plenty of room -- and need -- for a reasonable discussion of the collision between Muslim sensitivities and Western cultural values. But when you try to start the discussion by setting forth loaded, dichotomous questions like this one, you're going to end up with the kind of vitriolic muck that takes up much of the commentary space below.

(Okay, that's not entirely fair. You're probably always going to end up with some of that muck anyway.)

Rex

Khalid "cannot understand why Muslims are so mistreated in the West." I will tell him why. Muslims invented the roadside bombs (IED's) and the uomini bomba in the name of Allah"! The Muslim bashing, if there is such thing, has its origin in the excessive deification of the Prophet Muhammad. A religion that sits on false interpretation of God and prophecy is bound to generate lots of hate. Christian God is a God of Love and Compassion. Christian prophets were never bloody killers or drug users or whomanizers, as is Muhammad depicted in Mr. Rushdie's "Satanic Verses." Their prophets stood for all that is holy and noble and Divine at the risk of their own lives! John the Baptist had never used drugs and never drank wine, and he killed no one in the name of God! He died for the Truth, but never even dreamed of taking innocent women and children with him by blowing them in smithereens, "to Paradise"! Christians abhor even the thought that such violence could ever be rewarded with "eternity in Allah's presence"! When Mr. Rushdie, with no small personal courage, attempted to bring this problem to light, his life was threatened immediately by the Muslims. Yet he deserves to be knighted for his courage and for the good that he has done to Muslims, in the long run!

It is true that the knighthood of Mr. Rushdie offends some Muslims. However, aside from the obnoxious response of certain Islamic scholars to honor Osama Bin Laden, the response of millions of Muslims within and without Great Britain has been peaceful. I am no pollster, but is this peaceful response a Muslim vote in favor of Great Britain's action to promote a courageous author's right of free expression?

Europe has much to learn from countries that have lived with multiple religions and cultures for centuries (e.g., India, Singapore, Malaysia, etc.)

Europeans have made "freedom of speech" as more important than the sensitivities of their minorities or sensitivities of Muslims (or others) in the world. These two need to be balanced in such a way as to make society more robust in tolerance of every legitimate religion and culture.

Salman R.'s award flies in the face of logic. While he is much admired in the West, he is hardly considered as a great novelist in Asia, Africa or the ME.

It is high time that we award individuals in society that that have universal appeal (Mandela, Gandhi, Lincoln, etc.) rather than making calculated political choices. The award committees should avoid controversial choices that have hurt feelings of significant groups, religions or cultures in the world.

Societies venerate who they will based on shared values and perceived accomplishment.

Of the two choices, it is plain to see which society "works" and which doesn't. One has a future because it values free expression, creative imagination, inquiry, and scholarship; the other does not.

Needlessly provocative? To whom? It is a uniquely British honor. Using the same criteria, Sir Paul McCartney, having been immersed in hinduism at one point, should surely evoke the same vengeful wrath.

Needless? No; if anything, civil, yet direct challenge to and provocation of all fundamentalists is exactly what is needed and, indeed, is the only rational course of action. Those who take the literal word of the prophet or the christ or moses as truth, one hopes, must eventually grow up and discard their belief in magic.

Provocative? only in this sense: from what I've been able to understand from a translated Koran, all the provocation that is required for a faithful muslim is for one to be a non-muslim, or more egregiously, a former-muslim.

Before 9/11, I would never have considered reading _Satanic Verses_ for fear of offending the faithful sheep who might encounter me reading it in a public place. Never mind that it was not well-reviewed and based on a subject of which I have no interest.

Post 9/11, I feel duty bound to keep a copy on public display as a reminder of the danger of letting sheep roam freely.

--FIUS

I hate trivial questions and this one qualifies. Who really cares if Rushdie was knighted and if a small group of whackos celebrated Bin Laden? I certainly don't.

Khalid

Everyone has the right to express an opinion and respect your rights to express your own.

A few facts which, in my opinion, might change your opinion:

Muslims in UK House of Lords (Upper House of Parliament):
Lord Ahmed Nazir
Baroness Uddin

Muslims in UK House of Commons (Lower House of Parliament):
Muhammad Sarver

Please also note that in the 2005 Queen's Birthday honours list, the Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain was knighted - Sir Iqbal Sacranie.

You note that it is easy for muslims to obtain immigration/citizenship in Europe. Please inform us of how this compares to the situation for a non-muslim in a range of muslim countries.

The government in Britain also directly funds 2 muslim faith schools. Please let us know how many Jewish schools it funds so that we can compare.

I am glad that you make the point that those wanting to perpetrate violence against Rushdie are a minority in the muslim world. Lets all try and ignore the minority and not stoke their publicity/legitimisation complex, what do you say?

I don't know whether the director of The Passion of the Christ has a distinguished scholastic record like Rushdie, but one other thing might be against their eligibility for a knighthood - American citizenship.

I am sure that all readers look forward to your reasoned and rational comments.

It was most pleasing to hear your opinion as part of the diversity of views expressed.

Fair play to Mr Rushdie, I can't say that I would have the same courage he has showed, or the same conviction when it comes to publishing his own views. Muslims in the UK need to be reminded that if Britain were as restrictive and controlling as the Muslim states, they would not be granted permission to practice their faith at all.

As an American, I don't think I can ever understand why Pakistan honored bin Laden. I guess I'd just have to go there to be able to figure that one out. Nothing I've read makes any sense.

OMOP....
Yes, where is Lord Levy?
Isn't it strange, very strange, that we did'nt hear of him and his troubles...in the Washington Post or the New York Times.
Like we never hear of such things. It was a major story in Britain for weeks, threatened to effect Blair.
But censored in the United States.

OMOP....
Yes, where is Lord Levy?
Isn't it strange, very strange, that we did'nt hear of him and his troubles...in the Washington Post or the New York Times.
Like we never hear of such things. It was a major story in Britain for weeks, threatened to effect Blair.
But censored in the United States.

This basically is symptomatic of British comeuppance and payback for Pakistan defeating the limeys in cricket.

Recently a Lord knighted by Queen Betty called Lord Levy [definitely not a Muslim name] and a bossom buddy of Antonio Blair was indicted for selling knighthoods to his friends. According to reports in the Guardian Lord Levy is now living in Israel under a different name.

I am a Muslim and a Pakistani; I deplored the death threats to Rushdie once he wrote his book "Satanic Verses", because of two reasons:

1. Everybody has a right to express himself
2. Controversy attracts a bigger crowd

BUT I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY A MUSLIM, THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL IN ISLAMIC WORLD, IS ONLY RECOGNIZED AND HONORED IN THE WEST AND NO OTHER MUSLIM - IS IT A COINCIDENCE OR DONE ON PURPOSE.

It has become very easy for Muslim to get recognized (and immigration) in the West (especially in Europe) ----> JUST UTTER UGLY AGAINST ISLAM

Think of giving KNIGHTHOOD to the maker of "PASSION OF CHRIST" .... OH NO ... it would be anti-Semitism and OFFEND JEWS..!!

I am also against the protest against Brit Gov for this action (that I deplore) because of:

Even a person living deep inside Africa would know that such action would provoke Muslims; and some idiots would try to do some aggressive actions in or outside Briton against British; most probably would be caught well before the actual execution as they generally are novice, stupid and mere emotional; regardless of it, it would provide a pretext for acting against Muslims.

IT IS THE SAME OLD TECHNIQUE OF PROVOKING AND PUNISHING MUSLIMS
(This time Iran may be in sight)

I am a Muslim and a Pakistani; I deplored the death threats to Rushdie once he wrote his book "Satanic Verses", because of two reasons:

1. Everybody has a right to express himself
2. Controversy attracts a bigger crowd

BUT I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY A MUSLIM, THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL IN ISLAMIC WORLD, IS ONLY RECOGNIZED AND HONORED IN THE WEST AND NO OTHER MUSLIM - IS IT A COINCIDENCE OR DONE ON PURPOSE.

It has become very easy for Muslim to get recognized (and immigration) in the West (especially in Europe) ----> JUST UTTER UGLY AGAINST ISLAM

Think of giving KNIGHTHOOD to the maker of "PASSION OF CHRIST" .... OH NO ... it would be anti-Semitism and OFFEND JEWS..!!

I am also against the protest against Brit Gov for this action (that I deplore) because of:

Even a person living deep inside Africa would know that such action would provoke Muslims; and some idiots would try to do some aggressive actions in or outside Briton against British; most probably would be caught well before the actual execution as they generally are novice, stupid and mere emotional; regardless of it, it would provide a pretext for acting against Muslims.

IT IS THE SAME OLD TECHNIQUE OF PROVOKING AND PUNISHING MUSLIMS
(This time Iran may be in sight)

2:52

You haven't noticed then, that while Israelis want only Jews to live where they do..and refuse the RIGHT OF RETURN of the Arabs they so horifically displaced to refugee camps...they demand that Jews be able to live in the United States, or wherever else in the world they wish. Even where they're not welcome.
And, incidently, for the US taxpayers to pay for it. How many billion a year? And all the armaments they can use to grab more land in whichever direction? And make Americans less safe and hated
throughout the world?
Better read some polls.

2:52

You haven't noticed then, that while Israelis want only Jews to live where they do..and refuse the RIGHT OF RETURN of the Arabs they so horifically displaced to refugee camps...they demand that Jews be able to live in the United States, or wherever else in the world they wish. Even where they're not welcome.
And, incidently, for the US taxpayers to pay for it. How many billion a year? And all the armaments they can use to grab more land in whichever direction? And make Americans less safe hated
throughout the world?
Better read some polls.

The bottom line is this--

Muslims, especially in the West, want a double standard. They invoke freedom of religion and tolerance so that they may practice their faith. But then they demand the suspension of freedom of speech, separation of church and state, equal rights for minorities, women, homosexuals, etc., as far as their religion and cultural practices are concerned. They want the freedoms that benefit themselves, with none of the criticism or compromises that come with others having those same freedoms. They want a one way street, and this Rushdie thing is just another example.

While that is alarming in and of itself, what's downright terrifying is the number of Western "multiculturalists" and cultural relativists who seem to be perfectly willing to give Islamists veto power over our freedoms, all in the name of respecting "Muslim sensibilities." Enough.

Kenneth at 1:48 aabove:
And then why did we let Jews come to this country in the 40s. This is a Christian country, and by the way, Americans did not want to let them come...even refused a boatfull escaping, etc.
the nasty mouths on this column are not often very well informed.

Why do we care what Muslim people think? Socially, most Muslim countries are still in the bronze age.

There is no reason for Muslim people to come to the west, and there's no reason for us to accept them.

No more visas, let them fester in their own countries, at least we wouldn't have them them attempting to impose their archaic veiws on us.

Why do we care what Muslim's think? Socially, most Muslim countries are still in the bronze age.

There is no reason for Muslim people to come to the west, and there's no reason for us to accept them.

No more visas, let them fester in their own countries, at least we wouldn't have them them attempting to impose their archaic veiws on us.

Hulk,
First off, why put the word Christians in quotes? Secondly, the Pope is the head of the Catholic church, not the head of all people that are christian. Catholics are just part of the larger group of christians. Catholics tend to revere the Pope, saints, Jesus' mom as well as other religous leaders and figures. None of them, however, is put ahead of God.

ORL,
"How old are you, Dave? Where have you been in the last 60 plus years, Dave? Are you there, today, Dave?" 43, East Coast USA (for 43 years anyway) and yes. I'm assuming, based on your less than articulate response, that you believe that my IF scenario is or has happened and that by the war and the 60 years reference you mean the Israel issues. I don't buy that (Israel was not established in an attempt to eliminiate Islam, they have fought their wars over land, not religion) but for the sake of this discussion i'll let it go. So IF Muslims lost (or were losing) and non-Muslims removed (or were in the process thereof) all vestiges of Islam, how can at least a fifth of the world, and growing, be Muslim? How is it that Muslims are free to practice and live as they see fit in the US and most if not all western countries? Why is the most likely place for a Muslim to be killed or injured while attending a Mosque be in countries where the people are a majority Muslim? I would think that if there was this Muslim - non-Muslim war, the non-Muslim states would have already outlawed Islam. I'd be interested to know where this is happening.

It might be best avoid the extensive generalization required to assume that a group of Islamic "scholars" in the notoriously violence-prone nation of Pakistan are representative of the many hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide.

No doubt that is what these people would like us to believe. But there is little reason to think that the great majority of Muslims have ever read a word of Salman Rushdie's writing, or to believe it matters any more to them who the British choose to knight than it does to us who the Malaysians select as their king.

There are some countries -- Pakistan is certainly one, Iran is another, and many Arab countries fall into this category as well -- in which the practice of Islam is commonly associated with the lust to shed the blood of Islam's imagined opponents. It would be imprudent to ignore this reality, and those who apologize for or attempt to justify it ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is not apologizing for it, though, to point out that bloodlust acted upon or not is not a major factor in the lives or beliefs of most of the world's Muslims. The rage of some knuckle-draggers in Pakistan shouldn't lead us to think otherwise.

Dave! writes: "The analogy would be correct IF there had been a war between Muslims and non-Muslims, and IF Muslims lost and IF the victors attempted to remove all vestiges of Islam in a punitive way. Then your analogy would come close to the mark."

IF? IF?? IF???

How old are you, Dave? Where have you been in the last 60 plus years, Dave? Are you there, today, Dave?

ORL,
How the British knighting a citizen of Britain qualifies as "Humiliate-Them-Into-Submission" for Muslims is beyond me, especially when equated with Brest-Litovsk and Versailles. It's a grand canyon leap to link something as innocuous as that (or the aforementioned political cartoons, ramblings from the Pope, etc) with the mechanisms implemented by countries after a long war. The analogy would be correct IF there had been a war between Muslims and non-Muslims, and IF Muslims lost and IF the victors attempted to remove all vestiges of Islam in a punitive way. Then your analogy would come close to the mark. As it is, regardless of the intent of the act, the west does not have the obligation to adopt Islamic or any other religion's customs, rules or courtesies into its culture.

Apparently, Rushdie has written many books on other subjects and some of his stuff is supposed to be truly excellentso why should he be excluded from receiving such honours? His book Satanic Verses has not sold well at all, this means that precious few people have actually read the book, and their objections to Rushdie may be questionable.

On the road to nowhere, the most dangerous stretch is called the Humiliate-Them-Into-Submission stretch. Very few people are known to have ever got beyond that stetch; and amongst those who did, none ever got very far beyond.

Prime examples are both the Brest-Litovsk and Versailles treaties.

There are two amazing weeknesses in muslims and "Christians".

Muslims seem to have a human god who can't defend himself or if at all he tries ,he is only full of defending himself.I believe if he is the god who created heaven and earth,human comments on him are immaterial to his existance.Infact I respect him if he dies for me than if he wants me to kill or die for him.May be muslims are caring more about their emotions and ego's of being correct than the real god.

For "christians" ,those who worship sequence of old men,covered with pharisee gowns, busy showing himself over convertibles on streets full of lost souls worhiping him than the christian god who chose to show god than himself.The pope can't save himself and doesn't deserve any thing than prayer as god is the god of hearts than mob and celebrity.The Popes better read the bible and seek the spirit properly than quote words to insult other lost souls who may enter the kingdom before him.

PG

There is nothing new here. Every time an infidel spits toward Mecca, Muslims protest (and kill someone). If Muslims weren't so serious, it would be funny, however, there is nothing humerous about the murder of Van Gogh, the deaths associated with the Pope incident, or the fatwa on Rushdie (etc.).

Salman Rushdie wrote a book on Islam which offended Muslims, but, otherwise, as far as I know, hasn't even been accused of jay walking, whereas Bin Laden is responsible for the murder of thousands of people which include three thousand deaths (mostly Americans) at the World Trade Center. Al Qaeda also has attacked Muslims world-wide. Al Qaeda has fomented the civil war in Iraq by targeting Shiites and their Mosque - killing thousands of Shia. They killed innocent Muslims in Kenya, Algeria, and elsewhere. Bin Laden's has carried out his Islamic agenda with little regard for human lives - including Muslims. Is any kind of education required to become a Pakistani scholar?

Leave it to Muslim "scholars" to honor a mass murderer to protest the honor bestowed on Salman Rushdie by the British. We're supposed to buy that blasphemy is on equal footing with mass murder. Blasphemers can be put to death in Pakistan...

From the Washington Times, June 2, 2007:

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- A Christian was sentenced to death for purportedly insulting Islam's prophet Muhammad, and a human rights activist yesterday urged Pakistan's president to spare the man's life.
Younis Masih, 29, was arrested in September 2005 on the outskirts of the eastern city of Lahore after residents told police he made derogatory remarks against Islam and Muhammad.
On Wednesday, a court sentenced Masih to death under Pakistan's harsh blasphemy laws, which rights groups say have been misused against Christians since former President Zia ul-Haq enacted them in the 1980s to win support of hard-line religious groups..."

…but such antiquated laws need to be sentenced to death. Many would characterize this as radical Islam, but what worries me is that this really is mainstream Muslim thought.

Iranian Hypocracy

June 17, 2007, New York Times:

"Iran accused Britain on Sunday of insulting Islam by awarding a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” prompted the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to issue a death warrant against him in 1989.
An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Mr. Rushdie, awarded for services to literature in Queen Elizabeth’s birthday honors list published Saturday, was “one of the most hated figures” in the Islamic world.
An Iranian spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, portrayed the decision as an act directed against Islam by Britain, which is among the nations involved in a standoff with Iran over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Honoring and commending an apostate and hated figure,” Mr. Hosseini said, will put British officials in a position “of confrontation with Islamic societies.”
He also said the honor to Mr. Rushdie was part of a deliberate and systematic insult to Islamic values that was “planned, organized, guided and supported by some Western countries.”..."

Achmidinijad, by hosting the Holocaust denial conference, insulted Jews world-wide by calling into question the murder of six million Jews.

To answer the question posed by the Wahington PostGlobal, yes, no doubt that the British were aware of the predictable reaction from the Muslim world. A good decision and another introductory course to the Muslim world on western democracies.

Finally, I predict British sailors will be kidnapped in the near future...

Abu Nawas

Pretending your examples justify Western double standard against Muslims is rather weak.
In today world, Muslim radicalism which generate most of the violence, suicide bombers, discrimination against christians in Muslim countries, women statute in Muslim countries, refusal to assimilate to the values and way of life of the countries in which they chose to emigrate to, make the world a much difficult place to live in.
In our 21st century, the world should have learnt by past experience to accept differences and make the respect of the other the basic element of human relations.

Provocative? Wasn't putting a hit out on a British citizen the provocative act? Why should Britain respect the feelings of would-be assassins? Isn't that kowtowing to terrorism? (And for once, the word "terrorism" would actually apply?)

Agree/Disgusted,
Why exactly should Muslims even care one hoot about what the British do to a British citizen? The question is why should this act cause ANY problems with Muslims? The fact that this causes an uproar says a lot about the tolerance and beliefs of Muslims.

Ladies and Gents ...

Every action, with a potential to become provocative, whether deliberate or unintentional, has to have a reaction.

I am not ready to believe that whoever approved the kinghthood of SR did not get the nod from the British Foreign Office first. Hence, the Brits must have asssessed the "provocation" element before taking this step.

Please realize that an equal and opposite reaction from the Muslims would be to say/write/publish/honor something against the Christ. But, strangely ... that has never happened!!! It did not happen when SR published his book in 1988; it did not happen when the cartoon controversey took place; and it has not happened this time either.

The point to understand is that Christ, Moses, David, Solomon, John, Zakariya etc ... all are revered prophets for the Muslims and are perhaps more honored in the Muslim world than they are in Christian/Jewish world.

The Muslim reaction to any provocation against their Prophet, therefore, comes out as protests on the streets (rather than dis-respect to prophets of other faiths).

Would it not be nice if the Christian and Jewish world was to respect Prophet Muhammad as Jesus Christ is honored in Muslim countries?

One way to show such respect is to not issue provocative knighthoods.

I believe the reason Islam lasted 1400 years in the capacity it did, has been the followers relative ignorance of the history of it’s conception and development. Great majority of the Moslems in the world associate with their fate habitually and then only at a level that is comfortable for them. In-dept knowledge of the fate is not thought and in fact discouraged by the guardians of the fate (mullahs!) and blind obedience is all that is required.

In such atmosphere any questioning of the fate and all of the propaganda around it is a positive and welcomed development. Let Moslems notice again and again that there are views uncomplimentary of Islam. Some may want to find out what they are. It’s a good start.

On the subject of knighting of Mr. Rushdie – unfolding Islam’s shortcomings, when done by a Moslem requires courage. Considering some of previous recipients of the honor which if I’m not mistaking includes the inventor! of mini skirt, and also a few talented actors and singers, Rushdie does not look too far out of place.

This isn't ABOUT RUSHDIE. It's about someone in that government wanting to foment trouble with Muslims, in Britain and outside.
Like the cartoon in Scnadinavia. Deliberate.
Now, bring out the names of persons responsible for putting names for knighthood on the QUEEN'S list, and we can probably quickly solve this little puzzle. Easy. And far beyond dispicable.

Since the Queen is known to "do" the lists sent to her officially, we must wonder who included that name... knowing full well it would cause problems in Britain and beyond for Muslims.
We can easily assume it was the same kind of people who
did the cartoons in Scandinavia. They're all over the world doing their dirty tricks, and the world hates them increasingly. How will it end?

Since the Queen is known to "do" the lists sent to her officially, we must wonder who included that name... knowing full well it would cause problems in Britain and beyond for Muslims.
We can easily assume it was the same kind of people who
did the cartoons in Scandinavia. They're all over the world doing their dirty tricks, and the world hates them increasingly. How will it end?

Pakistani scholar's denounced Britain's knighting of Salman Rushdie and honored Bin Laden in response. Was Britain being needlessly provocative or simply asserting its own values and ideals?

I think Britain was being needlessly provocative and in fact things are much worse than that.

Where to begin? The only book by Rushdie I have read is the long ago Midnight's Children. I found it in the garbage behind a bookstore with the cover ripped off (along with many other tossed out paperbacks). I thought it was so-so. I distinctly remember that a clumsy intellectual idea--framework--was superimposed, not well integrated with the detail,--and in fact I thought the intellectual idea should never have existed and the detail should have integrated itself into some sort of overarching whole...But I could be wrong. It was years ago and I cannot even remember the clumsy idea I speak of...Something Jungian though--synchronicity, coincidence or something like that...

But on to the Knighthood. A Knighthood? I thought one has to be brave for that. Bin Laden is braver than Rushdie. Rushdie is no knight. Bin Laden is also much more beautiful than Rushdie. Rushdie is of repellent aspect--sinister and low of appearance. I detect no nobility in his appearance. Far from Camelot.

It was obviously a political move to knight him...And this becomes brutally obvious (and more) when we reflect that apparently Western civilization can come up with someone dangerous to a civilization struggling to accept criticism of religion, but Western civilization cannot come up with anyone dangerous to itself--which is to say someone as above itself as Rushdie is above the Islamic world...

Now that would be a knighthood, bestowing it on someone that Western civilization would like to kill (without that someone being beneath it, a regression, but someone from above that threatens to destroy it and usher in a new world). But apparently Western civilization cannot come up with such a person, so its problems are much more than Islam--in fact it is left with only knighting people against remnants of the past...

Western civilization is left with only stealing people from bankrupt civilizations and knighting them to preserve itself instead of creating further out of itself and going beyond itself...

Maybe Rushdie can write a book about that...

This whole situation stinks...Once again Bin Laden is braver and more beautiful than Rushdie. Islam for all its backwardness apparently can still think of a better knight than we can...

All we can think of is to pluck someone from their civilization that we agree with...

Comical. When we start knighting people dangerous to not only Islam but ourselves then we might be worthy to speak of knighthoods again. But then again I suppose knighthoods never were bestowed on people dangerous to ourselves so the whole institution stinks...

If you want to speak of a knighthood bestow one posthumously on Van Gogh--his ear alone was worth every fresh piece of ass in France. --And demonstrate some outrage that his descendant had his throat cut in the street.

We should be confronting Islam with the best of our civilization--and seeking out those who leave even our civilization behind in some quest for a future world...Not Rushdie...

Maybe knight J.G. Ballard instead (if he has not been knighted already--I have no idea).

But maybe Rushdie's other books are better than Midnight's Children...I suppose it was rather silly of me to have criticized when I have only one of his books under my belt, and that years ago and only dimly remembered.

But still, the knighthood was obviously political and not at all based on literature, on truly seeking out a dangerous and brilliant individual, one potentially beyond even Western civilization...

It would interesting to hear Rushdie's opinion of his knighthood....

HODARA:

"Until radical islam started to spread, the western world lived according to its values and it never occured to anyone that literary work or art could be denied the freedom which it has always enjoyed."

So why did the great country of Brtian ban the movie "The Exorcit" from video when it was released in 1973?

The film was only released uncut in 1999, and it was shown for the first time on UK Television in 2001. 24 years? that is a long time, isn't it?

Linda Blair who played Regan received many death threats and Warner Bros had bodyguards protecting her for six months after the film's release.

The bottom line is that Muslims are just tired of these double standards.

If Mr. Rushdie was awarded Knighthood for speaking out his mind via his novels than I think Britain is correct. But if was bestowed knighthood on the basis of his 'literary work' then authors of articles in Onion and Maxim magazine are long over due for their knighthood.

I applaud Britain's courage to award a mediocre writer such as Salman Rushdie the Knighthood. Probably they were responding to 7/7 attacks by homegrown Muslim radicals. It remains to be seen how far the impact of this knighthood goes. It remains to be assessed from the outcomes of the future related events, how important secular principles adopted by Great Britain shall survive. The question is important because Britain has a growing population of radical Muslims, mostly from Pakistan, who are all bent to implement the Sharia law.

Having written all that it is important to note that for the chapter "Return to Jahiliya" meaning a throwback to the days of ignorance, Salman Rushdie got his head in the crosshairs. In this chapter Rushdie implies that Quran was not a divine revelation as claimed - Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) fabricated/manafactured it, and, that his wives were not of noble character.

Of course, Muslims would be incensed. But, then that rage should not spread to secular countries that have no obligation to uphold Islamic values. It is precisely this phenomenon that is disturbing. If we in western countries cannot live by the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) then why are we here in the 1st place ?

All these call for regulating immigration, much to the contrary what Fareed Zakaria writes in his weekly Newsweek.

Apparently knighting someone under a fatwa requiring execution has been added to the list of things that are "needlessly provocative" for Muslims, joining such classics as satirical Danish cartoons, quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, security checks of suspicious middle eastern men on a plane, being Jewish, renovation of Jerusalem's Temple Mount, Dutch films on violence against women in Islamic societies and, of course Rushdie's initial offense of writing something perceived as an irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. The list is getting so long that i think it should require a Cliff's notes version for us non-Muslims, just so we can stay out of trouble.

I have read all of Mr. Rushdie's books, and remain an admirer of his talent. I would wager that anyone who actually reads The Satanic Verses with any knowledge of early Islamic history would find the book to be not necessarily insulting to Mohammed as it is questioning of the concept and methods of God. If Rushdie pushes a religious agenda at all in this book, it is towards agnosticism, not atheism. He instead portrays Mohammed as an intensely human character, with doubts and faults and questions, which is exactly how his early religious career is understood by academics and religious studies scholars. Prophets in Islam are not gods--they are human. Granted, Christians often get annoyed when Jesus Christ (acknowledged by the religious establishment to be both human and divine) is portrayed as human (remember the debates about the Gnostic gospels or the movie Dogma?), and the Vatican usually issues a statement, but such things do not create international incidents.

Given the history surrounding the publication of The Satanic Verses, Iran's condemnation of Mr. Rushdie's knighthood is understandable: even though the Revolutionary Council decided in 1998 that they would no longer support the 1989 fatwa issued against him, it is not possible for them to completely rescind it. So while Mr. Rushdie's life is no longer in danger and his knighthood will not spark the most spirited of objections from Iran, the Iranian religious leadership's need to react as they have is completely understandable, if unfortunate.

Pakistan's religious scholars, however, seem to be using this event for their own gain. Where they should be taking a cue from the behavior of Iran (where the original condemnation came from), these scholars and students (as well as the government minister of religion) have instead decided to politicize a cross-cultural debate and hint that a violent response might be forthcoming. I doubt that these persons have read Mr. Rushdie's work at all. What is most fascinating to me, however, is that they seem to ignore that he has actually written a book about Pakistan: it is called Shame, and paints a picture of Pakistani politics that is not exactly flattering. Religion has very little role in this book, which is more about culture and custom.

I suspect that many of those who have reacted so violently to Mr. Rushdie's knighthood have never even heard of this book, let alone read it. Those who have may be appropriately offended at his depiction of Pakistan (as is of course their right), but this is not a cause behind which one can easily gain international attention or recruit more people. Therefore, it is entirely possible that much of the Pakistani outrage at Mr. Rushdie's honors is displaced anger, purposefully transferred from the political to the religious in order to win support from Muslims worldwide, or the ignorant support of a political agenda in religious guise.

Sorry to say that the way your question is worded gives some strength to religious fanaticism.
In our democratic countries, religion is completely separated from the State. Therefore, it is inconceivable to have any foreign country interfere in Britain's decision to honour Salman Rushdie, on the basis of their religion. Until radical islam started to spread, the western world lived according to its values and it never occured to anyone that literary work or art could be denied the freedom which it has always enjoyed. In the past century,many fiction books, art and movies were considered insulting by Christian and/or Jewish religions, but beyond a criticism from the religious bodies, they were never forbidden. Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' provoked violent demonstrations, with a few deaths, in moslem countries and even in England, and it was evident that the masses who demonstrated had never read the book. Today we see radical islamist leaders order and the masses follow without any opinion of their own.
It is sad to see such a situation in this 21st century, which represents a regression which may develop into a very dangerous situation. This does not contradict the necessity that respect of the other must always remain an important item in our behaviour.

I would bet most people with opinions on this subject, including those posting here, have not even read one line written by that knighted one.

This is (and has been all along) an issue exploited for political purposes only: Just part of the daily propaganda game/exercise.

I reckon the number of people who truly care about that person's fate is even lower than the number of those who have read what he has written.

After all, how can people who do not care about hundreds of thousands of victims, about millions of deaths they were once (5 million in Vietnam alone), or are now (Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), directly or indirectly responsible for, care about this one knighted individual. They may pretend they do, of course. As such, that claim is, after all, pretty harmless; and cheap.

Great Britain's knighthood of Mr. Rushdie honors his courage and his adoptive country's freedom of expression. The knighthood, and the resultant controversy, is a reminder that our freedoms are hard won and apparently hardly won in the minds of certain Islamic Scholars.

Is not being provocative an assertion of our values and ideals?