Seriously, I loved this! The poster named "K" is really good. Excellent! Magnific! Let me reply to his post, line by line...

>Religion is about values.

Wow. This is deep.

>Arbitrary values are no values.

You mean, the values you don't personally like are not values? I mean, you decide which values are arbitrary? Cause, you know, there are people who think this way about Islam...

>Many in the West preach values without >respecting those of others.

If those values are contrary to the Western values - then yes, they do not respect them. They consider them, how should I put it more succinctly - "arbitrary values", and therefore, not values at all. You see now how simple it is?

>Salman has used his professed religion to >achieve personal fame at the expense of the set >of values he was born with.

First of all, people are not born with values. They are born with hands, legs, eyes - but values are installed in them.

Secondly, I am curious if you are saying that Islam was devalued because of him? That Islamic values are worse off because of him? Hm. Some values, I say.

>If Salman did not like what he comprehended, he >could have sought to go deeper into the >rationale of those teachings.

Or - he could go public and told everybody he did not like those values. I think this is a more reasonable way, you know. This would allow the Moslems to come out and explain why he was wrong. The marketplace of ideas and all that. Of course, for some reason, the opposing side was afraid of the debate, and chose the strangest way of disproving Rushdi's views - they tried to kill him. Obviously, they were missing somewhat more traditional arguments to defend their values.

This reminds me of a joke (a pretty sad one, if you think about it) - "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and if you disagree with this, we will kill you".

>Still if he was not convinced, he could have >discarded Muslim values and adopted any other >ones that he liked... and thats it.

Well, he could have, if he so desired. But he wanted to talk about them - so your point is moot. Rushdi is a free man. You have to tolerate his values and his views. I am not asking you to respect them - but you have to tolerate them. So put down that bomb, and listen to him. It won't hurt. I promise.

>But he has no right to ridicule the values that >millions of others respect and will continue to >respect

First of all, in the West we believe he had all the rights in the world to ridicule those values. Actually, people are allowed to ridicule any values in the West. Do you want to know why? Because we know our values can withstand the ridicule. You on the other side know that your values are too weak, too arbitrary and a single joke can destroy them. This is why moslem extremists went nuts because of his book, and the cartoons.

>Talk of "conquering" is a myth. If you harbour >one, you cant expect radicals within the Muslims >not to harbour such desires too (and then find >ways of realizing their desires) Dont expect >everyone to play this game according to your >rules!

Oh. So, when it comes to Islam, the West has to play by the moslem rules. But Western rules are not expected to be followed anywhere. Well, as I said before, "what's mine is mine, what's your is negotiable". Are you sure this can go on for a long time? I hate to tell you this, but the Western world is far, far more powerful than the Islamic world. At some point, the West will get bored with this game, and there will be hell to pay. Don't push the West - they are slow starters, but once they get going, well, you don't want to see what happens.

>Lets learn to live with each other and respect >everyone for whatever he or she stands for. >Havent we seen enough ?

I have to respect you for the values you believe in - even though I consider most of those values crazy? What then do you mean by the word "respect"? One of my values is the belief that Jews have the right to live in their homeland, which, of course, includes Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Do you respect me for this?

>Tolerence too is a two sided game.

Tolerance is not respect. In fact, society can tolerate all kinds of crazy scum-bags, but that does not mean that society respects them.

>If you expect Muslims to be tolerent towards >you, you have to respect their values as we see >them... not from your angle alone.

In other words, the West must respect Islamic values - and in return moslems will tolerate Westerners, i.e, they won't cut off their heads off. Isn't it a bit too much to ask? A tiny-teeny much? Maybe we can turn this around - the West will tolerate the Moslems if the Moslems start respecting the Western values. And yes, this includes whole bunch of them, including women's freedom, freedom of religion, political, economic freedom and such.

>Otherwise, you dare not emerge from your shells >lest some radical like you from the other side >finds out who you really are !

Ahm. In other words, respect Islam, or we will kill you. Just as I expected. Thanks for sharing with us.

Religion is about values. Arbitrary values are no values. Many in the West preach values without respecting those of others.

Salman has used his professed religion to achieve personal fame at the expense of the set of values he was born with. If Salman did not like what he comprehended, he could have sought to go deeper into the rationale of those teachings. Still if he was not convinced, he could have discarded Muslim values and adopted any other ones that he liked... and thats it. But he has no right to ridicule the values that millions of others respect and will continue to respect

Talk of "conquering" is a myth. If you harbour one, you cant expect radicals within the Muslims not to harbour such desires too (and then find ways of realizing their desires) Dont expect everyone to play this game according to your rules!

Lets learn to live with each other and respect everyone for whatever he or she stands for. Havent we seen enough ?

Tolerence too is a two sided game. If you expect Muslims to be tolerent towards you, you have to respect their values as we see them... not from your angle alone. Otherwise, you dare not emerge from your shells lest some radical like you from the other side finds out who you really are !

Ultimately, any faith that advocates the destruction of another individual or people cannot be of God.

Any person who advocates the destruction of another individual or people cannot be of God.

If someone wants to profane my God then he does it at his own peril. I will protect that which attacks my family, other than that, I will follow after true peace.

Let the world give what accolades it wishes but it matters not to me.

False religion and it's adherents have always been the thorn of humanity but God has not.

Ahmed

If Islam is not a revealed Faith that why don't you show us a book like the Quran ?

I show far better book if you are realy interested.

Tarik

Very correct. When the Neo-Cons look in the mirror they see Osama Bin Laden. Both are obsessed with their agendas regardless of how many they kill.

pagmatist, dragatory, progative

No danger of your getting a knighthood for spelling, eh?

As for you Mr. Emmott, were you REALLY the editor of The Economist? Under some circumstances, that might have been a sufficient qualification to be knighted. However, I think you have a self-inflicted Fatwah wound, and undoubtedly the "DELETE" button has already been pushed in your case.

Now, the question of the Dukedom remains. However, since you wrote: "He is just the sort of figure that we should give honors to" I regret to inform you, modern usage notwithstanding, they just do not award Dukedoms to people who end sentences in ways that one is not supposed to. (grin)

OTOH, Mr. Emmott, you entirely correct that the whole thing is a silly exercise - although one could see The Economist doing a spread on how much economic impact knighthood ceremonies have on the hotel trade and bespoke tailor establishments.

Bin Ladin is not a good muslim (God will be the judge of that),because he killed innocent people and he is just a guilty as the Neocons who kill innocent people and call them "collateral damage".

I was more offended that people like Elton John and Paul Macarthy accepted knighthoods.And David Frost too. Yes knighthoods are silly,but so is royalty.
And so is religion. All things from ancient times when civilization was young and ignorant.
One day,I like to think,we'll put aside such silly things and embrace a brave new world based on reality and rationalism,and kiss goodbye to the past,with its supernatural religious mumbo jumbo
and preoccupation with gods and war and knights in shining armor singing Onward Christian soldiers.
Enough already.

Ahmed

If Islam is not a revealed Faith that why don't you show us a book like the Quran ?

As a former Muslim I applaud Britain's decision to honor Rushdie. I left Islam because I read the Quran and the hadiths and the biographies of Muhammad. These books are proof that Islam is not a revealed faith, that Allah cannot be the Good God we would all like to worship and Muhammad was definitely not a good man.

Unfortunately most Muslims have not read the Quran, the hadiths and Muhammad's biographies and they continue to buy into the lies that Islam is from the true God and that Muhammad was a good man.

I wish Rushdie would write an unalloyed book about Muhammad. He should stick to the truth. he will have another fatwa against him but millions of Muslims will read his book and leave Islam and be liberated.

Because Muslims will not face the truth without getting violent should not be a reason to be reluctant to tell the truth.

How tolerant we are in the West! How open-minded! We are not least in bothered by blasphemy. After all, we don't even believe that blasphemy is possible! By contrast how intolerant are the Muslims! How markedly backward! So why not offend them at will. Better yet, why not conquer and educate them to the virtues of liberal democracy. It is, after all, the burden of the West!

Hear Hear, we should be proud of people such as Salman Rushdie who probe the depth of their religion; isn't true faith strengthened by trial and tribulation? In the satanic verses Sir Rushdie is struggling with his religion without desecrating it, it is a great work in the tradition of Goethe, something that is full of zeitgeist, a compelling work by one who has moved to the UK and is capable of bridging the worlds. Sir Rushdie is an example to us all in his integrity and in the sad realization that the one God of all monotheist religions is the exact same one.

I was born a Muslim and am proud of being one.

The award of knighthood to Rushdi regrettably is indeed deplorable because it shows a distinct indifference by the British Government to the feelings of the Muslims at large all over the World. In fact it sends the signal: do whatever you want, we will continue to remain indifferent. This is hardly something very prudent when the clash of civilizations seems to be becoming a reality, however hard we want to deny or avert it. It also undermines even the institution of knighthood in that anyone conferred with this honour ought to be revered. Instead, if the likes of Rushdi are conferred with this honour, every "Sir" would fall into the category in which this fellow has been placed.

I have also read the book "Satanic Verses". Without going into details, as a Muslim who is adequately versed with the past, I found that the book contains many fallacies and untruths and is a cheap means employed to achieve fame at the expense of a faith. He is totally indifferent to and miscunstrues the traditions and values that the Arab and Muslim Society lives by. Literature promotes a higher cause than inciting mankind against one another.

It is often precisely the practice of censorship that endows a particular work with the power the censor decries.

Serving time in jail in France... enough said.

If we westerners are so proud of free speech then why saying anything against Jews is anti-Semitic and crime, people are serving jail time for this.

If we westerners are so proud of frees peach then why saying anything against Jews is anti-Semitic and crime, people are serving jail time for this.

Thank you Mr. Emmott.

Free expression is one thing. Inciting murder is another.

The ironic thing is that the Satanic Verses is actually a very beautiful book, which contains many of the same sentiments that one would find in a less-legalistic interpretation of Islam (in an overall sense,not in its thinly-veiled depiction of Muhammad). The role of faith is treated very intelligently, and not uniformly negatively.

I suggest that everyone, especially Muslims, read this book for the following reasons: (1) It is a beautiful piece of art, (2) We should read books precisely BECAUSE some people call to ban them, and (3) Without moments of doubt, what meaning is there to faith?

What little raaction there has been in the Muslim world to this 'honorific' [a few protests and flag burnings here and there] - the bigger reaction seems to come from the western media and commentators who seem determined to decry and disparage what is, after all, Muslims exercising a little freedom of expression. A right of Mr. Rushdie's that is consistently and vigourously defended regardless of how offensive it may be.

What an odd 'lesson' to be imparting to the Muslim world - we respect the right of folks to insult your religion but we don't respect your right to protest against those perceived insults non-violently. And let's face it there was no violence I could find in news reports.

To my mind - this entire story - such that there is one should've been - Knighthood bestowed, Some protest. That's it. Instead there is this disproportionate hectoring commentary/reaction of 'how dare you protest - d**n Muslims' from westerners while self labelling staunch advocates of free expression. Go figure!

I agree with the comments from Anonymous above. 1000 years ago Christians were just as touchy about slanders against the Church or Christ. After dozens of Inquisitorial burnings, religious wars and many many dead we've come to the conclusion that being thin skinned about religion is a losing proposition. I wish for a future free of dogmatic religious thinking. And hopefully beyond that a world free from instituional religion all together.

Pragmatist-

If you live in the United States, please go home. We don't need people like you here.

Religion is for the weak of mind and the impure of heart.

That simple things like a cartoon or honors bestowed in foreign countries gives degenerates an excuse to cause violence is more proof than anyone needs.

Go head you idiots. Cry and complain about Rushdie being knighted. Every single day it's something else that offends you. Tomorrow it will be something else. Probably a t-shirt or a rock song that will cause you to riot and protest.

There is no pleasing you. So I will encourage any act considered disrespectful to any religion. For there is nothing more sinful and heinous in this world than those who support religion.

You are truly the root of all evil.

Pragmatist said:

"Last year the Scandanavian cartoonist drew dragatory cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad."

I felt so sorry for for all the Muslims last year having to see Muhommad drawn as a cartoon... I never knew they were so sensitive.

I'd riot if I saw my Prophet, Joseph Smith (pbuh), drawn as a cartoon.

Pragmatist,
Your statement above reminds we why the Muslim World and the West will remain forever incompatable...
Comparing Osama Bin Laden (a terrorist) with Rusdie (an Author) is ridiculous.

-Kenneth

btw, Muslim's unquestioned respect for their prophet shows their ignorance.

While Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" may offend the Muslims, they do not incite violence, nor do they cause physical harm to anyone. Conversely, Osama Bin Laden is a violent thug responsible for many deaths directly and by proxy. To compare Rushdie's "insult" to Osama's murderous activities is simply absurd.

I think in the Muslim World, Salman Rushdie is a pariah and the whole world knows. Last year the Scandanavian cartoonist drew dragatory cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. We all know how Muslim world values their prophet. There is no parallel of religious equal in the west. Hence its hard for the west to realize how much respect the Muslim prophet commands. Western value system revolves around personal rights, dignity and freedom. They do not hold any individual with highest esteem as the Muslims do. Western insensivity to Muslim world's ideals is the root cause of the problem.

Kighthood for Salman Rushdie, who is abhorred by the Muslims, borders either on ignorance or simple a reflection of antagonistic attitudes. The parallel of this act will be if Egyptian government bestows its highest award onto Osama Bin Ladin, who is abhored and despised in the whole world, especially in the West.

One cannot simply call the knighthood a British progative, unless we live in a vacuum. Any such act will induce more hatred amongst various communities of this Global village.

Let's all smell the coffee.