Sympathy for the community
More sinister crap.
Jack Straw today sympathised with the hurt feelings of the Muslim community over the knighthood awarded to the author Salman Rushdie – and disclosed that he too is no fan of Sir Salman’s writing.
Ah – he too. He too like…? He too like Ijaz ul-Haq who thinks strapping on a bomb is the right response to novels one is not a fan of? He too like Khomeini who thought novelists who write novels unworthy of fandom should be murdered forthwith? Is that what Straw meant? If not, what did he mean? Well, maybe nothing, since maybe it was the reporter who put it that way. But why say it at all? An effort to throw a bone to a dog? ‘Well, dear members of the community, I can’t quite promise to snatch back the gong, or extradite Rushdie to Iran, or have him arrested and executed, but hey, at least I am no fan of his novels, so is that any help? Please say it is – I do so sympathize with the hurt feelings of the Muslim community over the knighthood awarded to Rushdie, and I do so long to cuddle the Muslim community until it stops crying.’
Why does he sympathize with the hurt feelings of the Muslim community over the knighthood awarded to Rushdie? No, really; why? What business do they have having hurt feelings about it at all? Why don’t they instead have abashed embarrassed exasperated feelings over 1) the attempts to get Rushdie killed and 2) the grossly disproportionate reaction to one passage in one novel? Well, some of them probably do, but you’d never know it to listen to all the moaning about hurt feelings and outrage and hoof huffff foomp waha.
Mr Straw…condemned the idea that Rushdie should be the subject of a revived fatwa, or Islamic death sentence, for the offence he caused to Muslims in his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses. But, questioned by MPs about concern in the Muslim community and asked how the knighthood came to be bestowed, Mr Straw said that he found Rushdie’s books heavy going.
So the Times can’t get it right either. The Times too says Rushdie caused offence to Muslims. Can no one over there get it right? Is there not one journalist in the UK who can manage to mention Rushdie without saying he caused the offence and the fatwa and global warming? (Yes, Johann Hari; any more?) Is there not one journalist in the UK who can dredge up a little skepticism about ‘concern in the Muslim community’? Concern about what, they don’t ask sharply – so let us ask it. Concern about what? About the fact that someone once wrote a novel that said something about the prophet that they don’t like, and to this day that someone has not been murdered or executed and now he even has a K? Is that what the concern is about? But given how obvious the stupidity of such concern is, why are MPs asking questions about it? Why aren’t they instead making statements about how footling it is, and then moving briskly on to other business?
Of course I understand the concerns and sensitivity in the community. That said there can be no justification whatever for suggestions that as a result of this a further fatwa should be placed on the life of Mr Rushdie.
Well you shouldn’t, Mr Straw – you shouldn’t understand the concerns and sensitivity in the community. They’re bad concerns, they’re not worth understanding, they have to be resisted and disputed, not understood. They’re wrong. They’re coercive, and dangerous, and wrong, and the more people understand them and sympathize with them and weep salt tears over them, the more coercive and dangerous they will become.
The Satanic Verses was condemned across the Islamic world on its publication and led to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issuing a fatwa, encouraging Muslims to kill the author.
The Satanic Verses was condemned across the Islamic world without having been read by most of that Islamic world, and it did not ‘lead to’ Khomeini issuing a fatwa, Khomeini did that of his own volition. (Either that or a buttefly made him do it; anyway it wasn’t Rushdie.)
Isn’t it kind of common knowledge to everyone who’s ever had or met a toddler, that you don’t make a big sympathetic fuss over every single whimper if you don’t want to end up with the Spoiled Monster From Hell who weighs 800 pounds and won’t leave? I’d have thought it was. So why is everyone falling over each other in the rush to treat ‘the Muslim community’ like the most demanding petulant screaming toddler that ever was on land or sea? I leave it to your wisdom to determine.
Perfect! Well said.
It’s like dog training – you feed them AFTER the family, so they know where they stand in the dominance hierarchy.
Get their names wrong, tell them to get over it like those other religions and atheists who can take criticism without whining… oh wait. Well, they take it without beheading schoolchildren and bombing shoppers anyway.
What a weak-kneed response from Jack Straw. At this point, isn’t defending the right of the British government to honor its citizens without kowtowing to threats of violence more important than quibbling about whether or not Rushdie’s writing is any good?
O.B. this is pandering at its worst not supprising though Jack Straws constiuency has a large number of moslems.
There’s an implication to these kinds of comments that deserves to be noted: those who, like Jack Straw, denigrate Rushdie’s writing are effectively confirming the misconception that Rushdie’s K was not earned through his status as an author. The implication being that his K is a reward for causing offense to Islamists and/or a deliberate and calculated insult to Muslims. All other considerations aside, I should have thought that this was a politically and diplomatically unwise approach.
Many of the sneering comments have focussed solely on ‘The Satanic Verses’ (which I enjoyed by the way – not sure if I’m the only one). It’s worth mentioning that ‘Midnight’s Children’ won the Booker and was widely acclaimed as a masterpiece (justifiably in my view) well before this time. Rushdie has also produced an important body of work since. I particularly enjoyed ‘Shalimar the Clown’ which managed to be an unput-downable read as well as making serious points about Kashmir and the growth of terrorism.
Wasn’t the award for “Services to Literature”?
Which included helping other writers who were being oppressed by religious fruitcakes?
Perhaps the politicians should (shock, horror) actually address the issues?
Quite apart from the toddler analogy (lovely image, btw – glad neither of mine are heading that way!), do none of our politicians read any history?
Ye Very Old Constantinople tried the “pay off the barbarian louts” bribery tactic, but all it got them were loads more ‘barbarians’, who’d been tipped-off by the other lot that the daft Byzantines were handing out free gold…almost became a ‘take a ticket, wait till your number’s called’ scenario.
It all ended in tears.
Harry
I know the feeling, because I think I’m the only person who enjoyed “The Ground Beneath Her Feet”.
chris,
you’re not.
doesn’t do so badly?
Also this is interesting.
Good grief I am all over the shop with html today – sorry.
The first link is to an Economist article, which is what I was suggesting didn’t do too badly.
The second link – try again – was here.
You know, Richard, if you’re going to continue deliberately using antiquated names for Muslims you may as well go all the way and call them Mohammedans or Musselmen.
See here for shocking new developments:
http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2007/06/queen-in-shock-rushdie-beheading.html
“The fatwa was lifted in 1998, but not before the novel’s Japanese translator had been murdered and scores more injured in anti-Rushdie rioting around the world.
So says the Economist, See: last posting.
Nevertheless, I read in umpteen papers that on Moslem religious grounds the Fatwa cannot be rescinded. It is irrevocable.
Zum beispeil:
In today’s Tehran’s (Reuters) it states:
A prominent Iranian cleric said on Friday the fatwa death warrant against author Salman Rushdie issued by the late Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 was “still alive” in the Islamic Republic.
So why is the Economist being economical with the the real truth?
Yeah, just to suit the story to hand is my guess.
“Ijaz ul-Haq is planning to visit Britain…? Should not his name be at the top of the terror alert list at this point? Since he has not been invited, hopefully he will be turned away at the airport”.
I would second Carol’s [Times on Line] comment.
The religious minister with a minuscule “r” is nothing but a stirrer. How is one in all honesty expected to revere and respect a Moslem of his decrepit fundamentalist standing? But then it is in all probability – like father – like son! He knows no better.
The British authorities presently, are apparently saying he is entitled to come to Britain in a private capacity.
His timing is albeit very strategically timed indeed!
Watch out Britain, Straw man’s Idol is soon coming to town. Hope you have a nice eff[igy]ing time?!!
M-T O’L – the Iranian state lifted the fatwa in 1998 but there are all sorts of religious loonies, including Iranians clerics, speaking on their own authority, saying that it can’t be lifted or hasn’t been lifted and that what Iran said in 1998 doesn’t count.
“…if you’re going to continue
deliberately using antiquated
names for Muslims you may as
well go all the way and call
them Mohammedans or Musselmen.”
dzd
Since Muslims recognise all the
biblical prophets to be Muslims,
it might be a good idea to revive
‘Mohammedan’.
_
I remember hearing Straw once use the name of that prophet geezer and then say – wait for it – ‘peace be upon him’. Yuck, yuck, yuck! Eurrgh! Vomit, upchuck, chunder! Projectile sick hits radio with disturbing splat.
Who the hell is he to say ‘peace be upon him’ after he’s mentioned the name of someone else’s religious big daddy? It’s bad enough that people speak reverently of ‘our’ religion, but at least it’s ours, and in a nice C of E, vicars-and-garden-parties sort of way can be quite a comfort, like cricket on the village green, the shipping forecast on the Home Service, muffins, the Women’s Institute and teapots. Just don’t take it seriously, that’s all. But this so-called religion of peace? He dares, he dares, to say ‘peace be upon him’, on my radio, in my kitchen, speaking those words into the air I’m breathing. I’d like to sue the bastard.
Yeah, R + C’s of another looney kind, Right, I have it now.
The Islamic Republic of Iran lifted the fatwa. But the Islamic fundamentalists are the ones ignoring the fatwa. They seemingly think that once there was a fatwa there is always a fatwa.
Yeah, once a catholic always a Catholic.
Thank you for pointing this out.
“I remember hearing Straw once use the name of that prophet geezer and then say – wait for it – ‘peace be upon him’. Yuck, yuck, yuck! Eurrgh! Vomit, upchuck, chunder! Projectile sick hits radio with disturbing splat”
I too am regurgitating – ejecting contents similar to yours.
I am purging continually at the same time as trying to turn the abject radio off. Barf, puke, retch, upchuck disgorge, spew, honk. I am egesting, eliminating from the body the bile in the guise of “peace is upon him”.
“Yes, who the hell is he indeed. As Richard posted above; “this is pandering at its worst. Not surprising though as Jack Straw’s constituency has a large number of moslems”.
Better be out outta here fast as the next one to regurgitate will be. No, no, no – not Eve..O’ btw, did I as well post …M++++M or what?
Oh, gawd – I think I heard that too. During the cartoon row was it? He was doing some very heavy sucking-up during that – he was one of the guys out there in front saying their party piece: ‘Of course free speech is important but it does give anyone the right to offend’ – or some such infantile contradiction. Free speech is free speech but you can’t use it; speech is free until it might offend someone and then of course it isn’t; something like that. Yeh I think I remember that peace be…Can’t remember where or to whom he said it though. Do you, Andy?
Someone was looking into the matter around March 1 2006 –
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=321
Phoned his office; after some shuffling they confirmed: yes he done said it. Clearly you weren’t the only person hocking lugies at the radio!
(God I’m vulgar today.)
Ah, that was the formula – quoted here –
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=1196
‘Last Friday, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that he supported free speech – you always know what the next conjunction is going to be – “but there is not an obligation to insult or to be unduly inflammatory.”‘
I’m quoting someone, but stupidly forgot to say whom, and also forgot to link – but it sounds like Hitchens. That knowing what the next conjunction is going to be is Hitchensesque or I’m a Dutchman.
And here was me thinking the other half of Eve was going to do the dishonourable hocking. Quick, where is the sand? – till I temporarily cover up the mess – before the flying Dutchman comes on the horizon. I would not want him being vulgar with now -would I indeed?
Steyn Online has this to say.
“Likewise, Jack Straw. The Foreign Secretary goes to Teheran the way other Labour grandees go to Tuscany. He’s got a Rolodex full of A-list imams. When in the Islamic Republic, he does that “peace be upon him” thing whenever he mentions the Prophet Mohammed, just to show he’s cool with Islam, not like certain arrogant redneck cowboys we could mention. And where did all the ayatollah outreach get him? “We have diplomatic relations with Iran, we work hard on those relationships and sometimes the relationships are complicated,” he twittered, “but I’m in no doubt that our policy of engagement with the Government of Iran… is the best approach”
‘Free speech is free speech but you can’t use it’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPeWSpB_7w4
enjoy.
Thanks for that, Don. “You have the right to free speech, as long as you’re not dumb enough to actually try it.”
Coincidentally, I have one of the LPs of my old copy of _Sandinista!_ on the turntable right now, and I don’t play LPs very often. ¡Qué casualidad!
I use the term moslem to show my deep reverance for islam d.z.d.
Richard, you have won me over with your twisted sense of humor. The next time I’m in London, I want to buy you a pint.
Free beer is always a welcome thing P. I am also going to start a fan club for Andy.A he sounds like a kindred spirit!
“I’m quoting someone, but stupidly forgot to say whom, and also forgot to link – but it sounds like Hitchens. That knowing what the next conjunction is going to be is Hitchensesque or I’m a Dutchman”.
OB:
Erm…methinks you might be the latter.
But, nevertheless am prepared to eat Dutch humble pie, if incorrect.
“Whose fault is it that the media presents Muslims as fanatics”
…[T]his was a fine case of non sequitur meets category mistake, but you must also bear in mind that Straw’s personal vote in his own, heavily Muslim constituency of Blackburn, Lancashire, fell by 12.1 percent at last May’s general election because of the Iraq war. Cartoon
Characters. Whose fault is it that the media presents Muslims as fanatics?
By Geoffrey Wheatcroft Posted Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006,
Promise you wont slate me on this one, eh? Or I will be a flying B&W Irishwoman.
Ah, notice the care with which I put it – the conjunction is Hitchensesque – which is compatible with someone else actually writing it; someone influenced by the Hitchens style, for instance. Anyway I don’t mind being wrong about it.
It’s interesting that it was Wheatcroft, because I exchanged a few words with Hitchens (face to face I mean) on the subject of GW – May 2001 it was. GW had written something clever and witty – about CH or some subject of interest to him – I think I asked him if he’d seen it or found it of interest or some such. (I also made him laugh, which surprised me rather; it was the only time he laughed during the whole event.)
“Ah, notice the care with which I put it – the conjunction is Hitchensesque – which is compatible with someone else actually writing it; someone influenced by the Hitchens style, for instance”.
OB: You are on the ball as per usual. I can only learn by having things pointed out. Am eating away here – yes,……pie?
I know a few more people who will eventually find themselves having to eat same!
I am glad you made Hitchen’s laugh.
You have great wit.
I find when the world knocks me down that wit and plenty of the right type irony are very handy tools to have.
This statement is incorrect:
“fatwa, or Islamic death sentence”
its:
“Legal opinion concerning Islamic Law.”
or
“A legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar.”
an incitment to murder is not a legal opinion, Khomeini therefore was operating outside of Islamic norms (whatever you may think of those).
Not to mention no doner kebab…
l3xl00thr,
ubermensch.org?
Think you’re in the wrong place.
Pro U.S. bias is one thing I would not acuse the beeb of Nick!the rest though I agree with completly.