plague classed uneternal adreamed nonofficinal rich preterition essonite
Santa protests Canadian anti-terrorism laws
http://www.davefrieder.com/index.htm

plague classed uneternal adreamed nonofficinal rich preterition essonite
Tennis Elbow Injury
http://www.angelfire.com/xuewcqt/tos.html

plague classed uneternal adreamed nonofficinal rich preterition essonite
Career Program
http://www.angelfire.com/cdmafvjm/17t1.html

"Is it surprising that Islamic societies lag behind in advancements of knowledge?"

I don't understand how you can ask that question. Surely you know that not only during its dominant period the Islamic empire was the world center of science and culture, it also preserved ours from the ravages of the Dark Ages. Without their efforts we would have lost the Greek and Roman philosophers, playwrights and others whose writings provided the foundations of the Renaissance.

Whatever indignities Islam has suffered of late at the hands of its own adherents, this is a monumental achievement that should never be forgotten or belittled.

Thoughtful Iranian:

No, I do remember the gas lines here. I got through the situation just fine, thank you. I also remember when your country and the rest of the motley middle east crew turned the spigots back on because they were going broke.

Meanwhile, maybe it is time for you to get out your donkeys and wagons. I never saw gas lines in this country like I see in yours. I was traveling coast to coast for business at that time, via automobile, and the only gas lines were in the large metropolitan areas.

If things are so good there, why is it that most of your intellectuals fled in the 1970's? We had a neighbor in 1979 who fled from Iran with his entire family. They had a hard time getting out because of your zealot religious police. He was a medical doctor in Iran and served a two year residency at a hospital here and started his own practice. Another professional gone from another non secular government.

Anonymous is correct, threats are the definition of your type of culture. So try something in the Strait of Hormuz. Our Navy is protecting the Gulf and I don't think your speedboats could do much to stop them from keeping the Strait open.

to Thoughtful Persian:

There you go with your threats again.

Burke--
Sounds like you Americans are also itching for gas lines. Perhaps you forget the 1973-74 era or that you are too young. That kind of episode could be easily arranged by a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or sinking of a couple of ships......So, make choice and let us know.

Having history does in fact matter, but perhaps not to people of your lot since you never learn!

The posts by readers is simply amazing and a good indication that there are many, many uninformed, poorly educated, religious zealots out there who are trying to pass themselves off as demi-pseudo intellectuals!

The first lesson of civility is to be polite. The attacks of one poster on the other is simply absurd.

Ali - maybe you should care less about a fatwa and more about the practice in your country of burying rape victims - even children - up to their necks and stoning them to death. As bloody as America's hands are, not even our courts are so barbaric as to try a victim of violence as though she were the criminal, let alone pass out so harsh a sentence. Your regime is the new "sick old man" of the Middle East.

Dr. Ettefagh:
Like many who have posted here, I disagree with you strongly. Our lives, in a free society, should not be dictated by easily-offended extrimists.

But, more disturbing is your playing the role of apologist for Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian regime. In your post, you describe the fatwa as much more innocent than it is. As a result of the fatwa, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese language translator of the book was stabbed to death on July 11, 1991; Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month, and William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October of 1993.

Also, as recently as last year Iranian state radio reaffirmed the fatwa. It is extremist Islam that needs to work on its tolerance, not the other way around.

Mr. Ettefagh:
If what you're saying is true, Iran could score big diplomatic points simply by issuing an official statement that read, "While we don't like what he wrote, no one is to kill Salman Rushdie. We want to make this absolutely clear to Muslims all over the world, that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not call for the death of Rushdie. We believe that Allah must be chosen freely in order for worship to be meaningful, and therefore, we declare that Muslims should never persecute others for their beliefs. Let them say what they will, Allah is greater than all and he is his own defense."
Why can't Iran make such a statement. Please respond, but not if doing so will get you thrown in prison.

Just to clarify--According to the BBC website, the blasphemy law in the UK has applied only to the Church of England since 1838, and no one has been sent to jail for blasphemy in 85 years. So the argument that Rushdie shouldn't be knighted because blasphemy is illegal in Britain is unfounded.

Sorry, but I'm a teacher, and I won't let my students make arguments unless they get the facts right...

From a literary point it is unfair to confine Rushdie's achievements to one of his more mediocre works, and consequently a bit conspiratorial to attribute his knighthood to political provocation.

It is more likely that the knighthood process doesn't really bother itself with the sensibilities of populations and cultures the UK monarchy hardly deems worthy of notice, which is the real problem.

To Shiveh:

Wow! Thank you!

To Disbelief with respect

You mentioned that you are a Moslem and a doctor. No doubt that these two qualifications are substantial components of who you are. You became a doctor after many years of studying and understanding, but you are a born Moslem. Was being born Moslem the cause of you having the faith or you are a Moslem the same way that you are a doctor? Let me assume that it is the latter but use the occasion to mention a brief history of the conception of this religion.

Beforehand I should say that I’m not an impartial observer in this matter. I do not see any divinity in any religion and can only observe them as historical events. So, this is what historians agree on about Mohammad, the prophet of Islam and his doings.

He lost his father at a young age and was raised by his grandfather who although loved him and protected him never believed in him. At age 20 he married a wealthy 40 year old woman and through her cousins became familiar with the stories about Abraham and his descendents written in Torah and Bible.

At age 40 he declared himself a messenger of God and preached for about a dozen years in Mecca during which he gathered less than couple of hundred of followers. His Islamic teachings during these years are full of compassion and humanity. In comparison with the dominant culture of the Arabic peninsula at the time, they are no doubt progressive.

But then by invitation from a local tribe he moves to Medina. At the time, two neighboring cities of Mecca and Medina where unequal rivals. Mecca was the resting place of Arab Idols and was a commercial hub. Medina was home to 3 Jewish tribes plus the Arab tribe that submits to Mohammad.

Soon after arrival, Mohammad now leading a tribe started attacking the merchant caravans going to Mecca. Mecca sent an army to fight Mohammad in Medina. Surrounded the city but was not successful in destroying it and retreated. Mohammad accused one of the 3 Jewish tribes of Medina of helping Mecca. After deliberating with the other 2 tribes, he forced the Jewish tribe to leave Medina taking their belongings with them. Then, he accused the second tribe and forced them to leave without taking their belongings with them. The third tribesmen were arrested and later beheaded at the count of 700 in one day by one man. Ali, Mohammad’s nephew and his successor as the Shia sect believes, single handedly cut the head of 700 men and Mohammad became the sole ruler of Medina. During these years Mohammad’s preaching is revengeful and aggressive. He decides that the word should be forced by the power of the sword and by attacking small groups of Bedouins kills some and converts some till he is able to attack Mecca with an army of 10,000. Mecca surrenders without a fight and Islam establishes itself. The history of Islam after that for hundreds of years is full of blood and lust. Based on Mohammad’s teachings the army of Islam by defeating non-believers would own their property and their wives and daughters. That made many brave warriors out of Arabs that spread Islam in Persian and Roman Empires.

This is getting too long but dear Disbelief! If you have read this far help me figure out the relevance of this 1400 year old event to today’s life. As you know, Islam preaches submission (God willing.) It belittles all the earthly pleasures in behalf of afterlife. Teaches you to throw out all desires and live a stagnant life praying for a promised afterlife that has everything you are forbidden to have in your earthly existence. You are a doctor, no doubt know about psychological effects of this way of thinking more than I do. Is it surprising that Islamic societies lag behind in advancements of knowledge?

Dear Disbelief,
Frank started it with his quotations of killing everyone not Ismlamic. Straight from the koran no less and clearly not taken out of context.

I can't believe the hatred being eminated from this page. I'm a 26 american born muslim, a doctor at that, and Im apphauled at the responses ppl made on this page...Lumping all the "ISMLAMICS" together...btw, if youre going to be prejudice at least get the terms right...ppl who follow islam are muslims. Anyways. Its great how everyone has so much to say about muslims in general. About how much hate they have for everyone else and that they cry for sympathies...but look around, everything bad that is happening is happening in muslim populated areas. And please spare me the rants of how they brought it upon themselves. I mean, if you were living in a wartorn nation, you would be filled with contempt for the ppl that were causing this. Getting off topic, it's a shame that even in this time and age that ppl have such pre-historic notions about ppl of other faiths. It saddens me, and pretty much makes me sick. I, myself have many friends of other religions, Jews, Christian, Sikh and Hindus. Islam does not teach or promote violence or hatred. Please stop taking things out of context.

Thoughtful Persian said:

In fact, 90% of the world population, including many in Europe probably agree with this statement.

In fact...probably??? Nice.

Frank:

This is why your religion is called a doctrine of devils, promoting suicidal murderers with the promise of heaven.
The One True God would never reward such actions with salvation.

The religion of Islam was that of the tribe of Mohammad and was the worship of a moon goddess.

Your Koran talks that Jesus was not the Son of God but a prophet like Mohammad. Your Koran is not Holy Scripture.

Jesus, clearly said I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No man commeth unto the Father but by Me.

If I teach or tell you anything else that is a lie. Unless someone else pays for your sins you will die in them and spend eternity seperated from God. A religion of works just won't do. One's good works are the result of a relationship with God and not as to earn His favor.

Mohammad said submit. Jesus said Decide.

IRONY: Felix D writes -- "don't turn it into a racist issue [by] trying to paint your potential debating partners black."

Ha!

Thoughtful Persian:

Having a long history does not mean anything. You are not Persian, you are Iranian. The Persians were a great people who DECLINED into today's Iranians. Islam is what has brought you people to where you are today, a backward hateful people. I can't understand how one can live filled with such hate. I don't have any great hatred for Islam, I just have a distrust of all religions. Remember, as far a religions go, Islam is the new kid on the block.

Now, go back to your gas lines. It amazes me that a country that has so much oil in the ground has very little refining capacity. Ask the Chinese for help. They will probably be more than happy to provide technical assistance, then they will eat you alive. At least they aren't a religious people.

Best of luck...

I think when it comes to domestic debates of sovereign countries, and at this point Iran, is indeed a sovereign nation, the West has no reason for interfering, an argument which John Bradley also makes. When the caricatures appeared in the Jyllands-Post, some Muslims were offended let them demonstrate, I just think we should have the same standards for everybody, and accept different social frameworks. So if the Queen decides to knight Mr. Rushdi, just let her do it.

http://atlantic-community.org/index.php/articles/view/No_Regime_Change_for_Iran%27s_Ethnic_Minorities

EAGLE-
from our angle, you Americans are a bunch of violent gang that do not have a long enough history to be in a position to dictate to the rest of the world on how to live their lives. In fact, 90% of the world population, including many in Europe probably agree with this statement.

As for issuing Fatwas, didn't Bush issue one against Saddam, with a 48 hour deadline? And if you look closely and objectively, you can conclude that, at least since America came into existance (a) there has been no war between Muslims, save for the Iran-Iraq war that was supported by Americans, and more importantly (b) the most destructive weapons in world history have been produced by Christians, especially Americans; and (c) let us not forget that Americans used the A-Bomb on non-Christians in Japan but not against their Christian cousins in Germany!

No matter how you cut it, you cannot get around these historical facts that American policy is essentially a policy to create havoc around the world.

Singapore was the first and India, Rushdie's home country, was the second country to ban The Satanic Verses.

Ah, I knew it wouldn't take long for America to be brought into this.

All I can say is that the western world will finally be sick and tired of protecting the hate that is eminated from the Islamic world and something will be done.

Islam continues to make the world a hell on Earth for it's own selfish needs while wanting sympathy while they do it.

If issuing Fatwas, keeping the general populice uneducated and poor, swathing women in sacks, and generally being violent bores keep to your own. Why be concerned with the civilized world?

Please keep to your own stone age beliefs and allow us to keep being evolved.

Well, if freedom of expression trumps over responsible social behaviour, why is it then that Mein Kampf is banned in Germany?

The poster FRANK above keeps on repeating ancient words of religious zealots as if other major religions (Abrahamian or others) never had any extremists or violence as an additive to their ideology.

Look at Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses----it starts with the factional violence between two non-Muslim sects in India. But again, I might be making a false presumption that he has read it!

Rushdie committed a crime under British laws of Blasphemy. Laws are for every body and must be applied equally to all.

The balance between freedom of speech and freedom of expression vs. insulting others in society (be they your neighbour, a fellow citizen or some one else in this ever shrinking world) is a matter of law and a matter of very delicate but civilised debate. Unfortunately the posters above, presumably American, think that they can use unpolite words to get their point of view across.

Reminds me of the clueless American tourist in Europe or Mexico who thinks that if he speaks louder in English, the Mexican, the Italian or the Spaniard will understand what it is that he is trying to say.......

What an amusing but highly misguided bunch of comments for people who on one hand want to defend the freedom of thought and speech and on the other hand are going out of their way to attack the writer. In fact, who gives you people to make unpolite and abrasive comments about the writer?

Granted that it is the anti-Muslim season in USA and the Yanks are told by their Decider to be anti-Muslim and anti-Iranian. It is simply the violent nature of Americans to react in this way, not to mention the fact that the Americans, and not others, have made the world less safe these days.

This PostGlobal blog is a forum of opinions. That means the writer is entitled to provide their opinion. Salman Rushdie is also entitled to his own opinon. However, no one is excused from being polite and no one, including Salman Rushdie is excused or excusable from the rule of UK law which criminalizes blasphemy. As Dr. Ettefagh has clearly stated, it was a totally unnecessary move to open old problems. But again, and as I read the posts above, Americans seem to thrive on amplified and polarized differences. For what aim, who knows.......

Frank = Frank Collins = Venkat = Man Singh = Hates anyone who is not a Hindu.

Mr. Ettefagh is writing from inside Iran. A country in which you can be called a spy and disapear over night for no other reason than expressing yourself in Western media. So reading a little between the lines in his case is warranted. Note that after he mentions Khomeini's fatva, he describes the reaction as "truckloads of the books were purchased and burned by narrow minds in protest. Extremists in Pakistan and in Pakistani ghettos in the UK were the message’s consumers." Give him a break.

I do personally think that it is absolutely within the framework of British sovereignty to honor salman Rushdy or whomever they wish. However, I believe that all this care and importance have been granted to Rushdy solely because he attacked Islam and the Prophet Mohamed in writings. There are hundreds , if not thousands, of writers throughout the Islamic world who have excelled in their literary productions, but the west is turning a blind eye on them and on their literary work. When Najib Mahfudh, the Egyptian prominent novelist was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in the end of the 80's, it wasn't at all in recognition for his great work in the domain of literature, but as a reward for Egypt who had signed a peace treaty with Israel a few years before that. I hope the West will move a little towards changing his stances towards the Islamic world, his religion and his culture.

Can't we all please just get along? It's just so many words after all.

Another misleading bit on info in this piece is what the author claims was clearly in the fatwa. Here is the full text, as broadcast on radio in Iran:

In the name of God the Almighty. We belong to God and to Him we shall return. I would like to inform all intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qor'an, and those publishers who were aware of its contents, are sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, where they find them, so that no one will dare to insult the Islamic sanctities. Whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr, God willing. In addition, if anyone has access to the author of the book but does not possess the power to execute him, he should point him out to the people so that he may be punished for his actions. May God's blessing be on you all. Rullah Musavi al-Khomeini.

I have not ready every comment yet, so my apologies if someone already stated this. The author notes that the fatwa wasn't really a big deal in the "middle east" at the time, and was merely the views of a few radical people. If that is in fact the case, why the fervor now? If noone really cared what he wrote, then it isn't pouring fire on anything to knight him. Honoring Bin Laden on the other hand...

The author claims that Rushdie was "not a very well known writer" (presumably at the time of the publication of The Satanic Verses, though not stated explicitly.) This statement is absurd. He won the Booker Prize for Midnight's Children in 1981 (seven years before publishing The Satanic Verses. His next novel, Shame, was shortlisted for the prize in 1983. Anyone who read books knew of Salman Rushdie long before The Satanic Verses. The author should be ashamed to put forward such a blatant misrepresentation. It's a cheap sophistic technique, used to belittle the subject in order to prop up the views of the speaker. In this case, it's also just flat wrong.

Mr. Ettefagh, you think you are very clever. You dont wish to address the fact that issuing fatwas against people for airing their views is incorrect.

Instead you are busy blaming the U.K., lobby groups, even India (pray, what is the connection?) and Salman Rushdie is now a dear old fraud and the whole world is trying to provoke you?

What you need is a reality check. The world gives two hoots for your opinion. You think you are free to write this commentary here- but hey, you are provoking me! So stop, we dont need your views anymore. Take it to your grand leader.

You people are beyond sick. You take advantage of free speech and air your extremeist views here. Yet, I wonder if you have the balls to do the same in Iran - where you will be dragged off to some no-name prison never to be heard of ever again if you dare question.

Lets face it, you are a boot licker- so please take your mopey baggage home.

Going by his introduction Mr. Ali Ettefagh has considerable formal education. Which, unfortunately, appears to be wasted because he appears to harbor many prejudices and is trying to be too clever by half. Salman Rushdie was the victim of Iranian and other Islamists, not the other way round, as Mr. Ettefagh would have us believe. I think some intellectual honesty is the minimum requirement for offering opinions in a public forum. I too have read all of Sir Salman's books and regret that his pre-eminence as a first-rate writer has not yet been recognized by the award of a Nobel prize. For Mr. Ettefagh to take swipe at the emergence of India as a significant power is just petty and indicates small mindedness, if not envy.

J Bolton

No it is not acceptable to kill anyone for any reason, except when Israel feels like doing so (in that case it is noble to kill).

Perhaps we should frame the debate with another question. Is it acceptable to kill someone for words they have said or written? A simple yes or no will do.

I have found that the Muslim response to this question many times comes with justification for why (they usually say "in this case") the great hermetic leader in Iran is correct.

If you answer that yes, it is acceptable to kill someone for this reason, then our differences are too far apart to reconcile in this forum.

If you answer that no, it is not acceptable to kill someone for this reason, then I must question your reasoning that England is at fault for pouring salt in old wounds. Why should we even care about imaginary wounds or any other delusions of the neurotic?

I suspect that your disapproval of the whole proceeding has less to do with the merits of Mr. Rushdie than with barring freedom of speech and tacit agreement with the aforementioned great hermetic leader, but I await your response.

Mr. Ettefagh claims to have read "The Satanic Verses." Has he read any of Rushdie's other work? His argument rests on a completely unsupported assumption: that Rushdie was honored purely because of "The Satanic Verses" as a slap to Iran. It is based on nothing but conjecture. What of the possibility that Rushdie is being honored for his overall contribution to English literature, including a dozen novels, and an impressive body of short fiction and essays? As for the timing, Mr. Ettefagh does not note that Mr. Rushdie is being honored right around his sixtieth birthday - another reason, possibly, that his name came up at this time.

No, "Persian Reader," Mr. Ettefagh is not being slapped down for being Persian. He is being criticized because he hasn't made his case. He has made bold assertions supported by nothing more than conjecture, and has not considered alternative explanations for the event. It's a weak and amateurish effort, and I wonder at its conclusion here.

About Mr. Blair and his cash-for-honours "secret"
javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/world/2007/04/10/oakley.cash.for.honours.cnn','2009/04/09')

From CNN.

TO PG editor
Please delete the promoters of hate and anger from comments above, Frank Collins being the first one in the lot.

The author has clearly stated that violence is not right....in easily understandable English, I might add.

Blasphemy is a crime under UK laws and it must be dealt with in strict conformity to the law. Nothing more and nothing less and if Rushdie is guilty of it, so be it. No double standards, no where.

Moreover, few posters have observed his denounciation of violence, from every side and angle. That is, in fact, the substance of his article.

Persian Reader:

"It is most interesting to see that all commentators are starting out to skew Mr. Ettefagh simply because he is writing from Iran."

Don't be silly, Mr. Ettefagh is being skwered on substance, don't turn it into a racist issue. Is that the only defence you can think of? How about you engage on substance instead of trying to paint your potential debating partners black.

I suggest all Muslims commit suicide because by worshiping the Arabic god Allah instead of the True God, they are all committing blasphemy. I recognized this fact and left Islam and stopped committing blasphemy.

Blasphemy is against the law in UK, and the law does not differentiate beteen religions. Thus the Knighthood is in fact illegal, since they cannot be granted to people of dubious reputation or character or background. As the writer said, it is cheap political tool to create more havoc.

It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with freedom or the concept of freedom in a responsible society. One is not free to break the law.....

Frank Collins-

Gee, I guess your lot ain't the victim of supporting Saddam or feeding bin Laden via the CIA in Afghanistan, against the USSR?

The funny thing is that you guys always have bet on the wrong ones....bin Laden and his gang of criminals out of Pakistan defeated and the Soviets in Afghanistan and they are making Iraq unwinnable for the Yanks......So, I guess you are technically right as you are the victim...of your own stupid choices. I think that is what the writer is trying to politely communicate!

It is most interesting to see that all commentators are starting out to skew Mr. Ettefagh simply because he is writing from Iran.

Once we get over that, the readers are attacking him in defence of Salman Rushdie, a British national of Indian Muslim decent (perhaps a second generation immigrant). The debate and the roughness is essentially within the Indian Muslim community (and let us all remember that Pakistan was the a part of India with concentration of Muslims).

Once we get over that, we have to understand that Blasphemy is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. Now, and if UK is indeed a multi-culture, multi-ethnic and multi-religion society.....why should the laws of blasphemy not be applied to some second rated writer? and in fact turn it around and make political hay out of it all?

Mr. Ettefagh manages to shoot himself squarely in the foot.

The satanic verses is very much a story of Muslims in the west, it's about the struggle to live in the UK and adjust to the liberal mindset and often the incredible decadence present in a liberal society (such as reality soaps) such as the UK. Mr. Rushdie helps to give the British Muslims a perspective, you can be British AND Muslim, and there doesn't have to be a contrast because you are a citizen of a western democracy and what is between you and Alllah is what is between you and God.

The Satanic Verses perhaps wouldn't have become famous without the Ayatollah Khomeini giving it his reverse recommendations, and in doing so Mr. Khomeini has helped raise this work of literature into an edifice that has become central to the struggle of Muslims in this globalist world; it is also about how one retains, thinks about and strengthens ones religious conviction in the onslaught of so many different voices. This is about individual people making up their own minds with the strength of their own convictions of what is right or wrong, their choices run the entire gamut of all that one can achieve in a free nation such as the United Kingdom. Sir Rushdie has done his fatherland a great service; the UK is a multicultural society and there is freedom or religion; his indelible contribution amplified by the Fatwa is deserving of knighthood, lesser men received the same title for lesser accomplishments.

And yet Mr. Ettefagh chooses to see this event not as a British event honouring a cultural prodigy, but as "a desperate attempt to polarize and rally around differences."; "an aimless desire for more violence". But it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who sentenced not just Mr. Rushdie to death in his fatwa: "all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death"; and in fact Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator, was killed. Mr. Ettefagh sees fit to blame Pakistani extremists for the whole ordeal, as if the Ayatollah Khomeini's desire was only to issue a sad proclamation of hurt feelings that was misinterpreted by those nasty radical Pakistanis. Gosh Mr. Ettefagh, can you see the hole in your foot you just made or do I need to show it more clearly?

Mr. Ettefagh writes that "Gremlins that thrive on division are trying to drag out a dead issue and warm it over, even after the Iranian government officially agreed to a closure and buried the hatchet with its British counterpart some ten years ago."

Gremlins? On feb. 14th, 2006; just over a year ago, the Iranian press reported that the Fatwa still stands. "All those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death", the Ayatollah Khomeini said. The Iranians agreed to a closure ten years ago only to slice it open just over a year ago? Mr. Ettefagh, you really don't understand freedom, do you.

What did the rise of India have to do with granting knighthood to Rushdie? If you have a problem with India, let it out in a different context. Rushdie's knighthood is well-deserved!

Rushdie won the Booker prize in 1981, and then won another booker prize for the best of the last 25, along with other awards for his booka.

That seems to me to not really be an unknown, or at least a lot more of a known then a lot of various Knights Bachelors.

I am so glad that Ali Ettefagh lives in the "Democratic Republic of Iran" and not here. I revel in the fact that muslim's consider me and infidel.

A religion of hate, such as islam, has no place on our planet. When the two sects go at it in Iraq and elsewhere, it is just like two street gangs killing each other. I win every time one is killed.

Look that one religious chief Ayatollah Khomeini determines that a British citizen must die because of blasphemy. First, Salman Rushdie is not Iranian. Second as he is not Muslim he is not committing blasphemy. When a Muslim called a Christian the INFIDEL is this not blasphemy?IF showed a picture of Mohamed and the Muslim does not like they killed people, Is this not blasphemy? Muslim extremist want only one thing economic and political power and they use the religion to get there.

I don't understand this column at all. If the fatwa was misunderstood, and if Iran has gotten over the whole thing, then why should anyone care that Rushdie is being given a knighthood?

That's the inherent irrationality here -- Iranians complaining that this knighthood is a provocation against them, or a deliberate effort to make Muslims look bad. Why think this is about you? Why act provoked? Why not let it blow over by NOT REACTING AT ALL?

Ali Ettefagh is nothing more than another apologist.

frank collins - there is one thing you can say about islamics - you can pretend to be the victim better than any group around today.

Even better than Christians.

I'm not interested in letting radicals in the Muslim world dictate everything I can say or do. If that is provocative or needlessly polorizing, so be it. This notion in the Muslim world that they can circumscribe what we do in the west because some nut job there finds it offensive is a key to our differences. They want to make us conform to their notion, we want to let people decide what they want to do. That Pakistan sees it necessary to honor Osama bin Laden just proves what idiots they are -- as if a WRITER can be comparable to a MURDERER. Talk about "cheap political theater!" Let these stone age people act out, just leave us and Mr. Rusdhie alone

I would agree with your statement if it was a good idea and was it necessary to pour more fuel on Pakistani religious extremism. But then, what do you suggest as alternative? Should the civil minded people of the world simply stop living their lives because of this fear of provoking a bunch of religious freaks in Pakistan, Iran or in the ghettos of UK? I think Mr Rushdie is eminently qualified to receive the knighthood if you compare with the countless others who have received it before him.

PS: I could not help notice your dislike of India as an emerging nation. So, the fact that Mr. Rushdie is an Indian born to receive this honor makes it even more special.