multicultural Britain

Multi ethnic Britain, too.

And with the banning of Wilders for thought crime, they have, we have surrendered.

they have won

Religious fanatics give me the willies, and anyone who would kill a person for merely writing a book they don't like, is in need of a psychiatrist.

A true secular society would completely negate the comparative justification for talking about issues such as blasphemy.

This video is actually quite obnoxious. Thanks.

Happy days, when violent fundamentalists would just burn a few books and make targetted death threats against particular named individuals rather than whole societies. Sigh...

Sacranie: "Death would be too easy for him"

I have to agree that there is plenty of evidence around here that shows the Islamists have won.

Not just the ban of Wilders either.

20 years on dispite the liberal outrage, given the chance I'd still burn the book. !

Yes the written word is important, but like the spoken word if you abuse someone or abuse someone's loved ones that person has the right to be offended.

Many people in the West fail to understand that whether right or wrong Muslims love Muhammad (pbuh) more that they love their own children or family members.

And whether its the "satanic verses", "danish cartoons" or the next insult people will react however irrational the West's liberal elite think their feelings are.

The really strage thing is that Rushdie's book was partly about the rise of multicultural Britain, and presented a positive image of young British Muslims.

But I guess that, apart from the sideswipe at Khomeini in the book, the old men of the Iranian revolution weren't too happy about a book that presented young British Muslim women overthrowing the oppressive patriarchy. If Iranian teenagers were to read it, it might give them ideas.

You can see how the reaction to the book would have soured Rushdie's view of the ability of Islam, or rather its old alpha males, to progress. But if you actually take the trouble to read it, carefully, the main story is about an Anglicised Indian Muslim rediscovering his cultural and ethnic roots.

@quest2008

"20 years on dispite the liberal outrage, given the chance I'd still burn the book. !

Yes the written word is important, but like the spoken word if you abuse someone or abuse someone's loved ones that person has the right to be offended."

Yes, that person has the right to be offended.
Yes, that person has the right to burn the book.
No that person doesn't have the right to murder or to incite others to murder.

Rushdie's book burning was the first salvo in an extremely depressing culture war that uses all the soft entry points of 'liberalism' in order to defeat liberal society.

I think that toleration of this event has led to a struggle that is going to get more intractable as the decades and centuries wear on. I hope I'm wrong, of course. But nothing in the intervening two decades has given me hope.

Shameful. And shameful too that on the 200th Birthday of the man who wrote one of the greatest books ever - ' On the Origin of Species ' - the Guardian chooses to put a photograph of book burners on its home page.

The liberal left's kowtowing to the Rushdie fatwa, as people like Kenan Malik and many others have pointed out, was not the dawn of multiculturalism but of religious sectarianism. Subsequent appeasement of religious incitement to violence throughout the Danish Mohamed cartoons saga upto the placards displayed in the 'Gaza' demonstrations has resulted in someone like Lord Ahmed being able to decide that a democratic EU politician is not free to visit UK.

As a Labour party member and Guardian reader for many years I feel ashamed that both have colluded in this state of the State

Many people in the West fail to understand that whether right or wrong Muslims love Muhammad (pbuh) more that they love their own children or family members.

Errr wrong, obviously.

@ stuv

shameful too that on the 200th Birthday of the man who wrote one of the greatest books ever - ' On the Origin of Species ' - the Guardian chooses to put a photograph of book burners on its home page.

Stuv, is it really better that the Guardian ignore these things? It would be shameful if the Guardian endorsed book burning, but by covering it and the effects it has had on our society...well, that's really the point of a site like this isn't it?

The soft-liberal politics championed by The Guardian, the BBC and this utterly disgraceful Labour government has destroyed free speech in this country and effectively given power of veto to a small minority of religious fanatics. We now have a situation in which a Muslim peer born in Pakistan is, in effect, deciding who we allow into our overwhelmingly non-Muslim country. The penalty for thinking or saying the "wrong" thing now is loss of livelihood and media witchhunts. Scientists are attacked by government ministers if their research findings contradict the government's party line. Our major public broadcaster has been reduced to a snivelling, apologetic government mouthpiece. All this in just 11 years of Labour governance.

There is only one thing we can do: WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT VOTE LABOUR

Bulbosaur

I think that toleration of this event has led to a struggle that is going to get more intractable as the decades and centuries wear on. I hope I'm wrong, of course. But nothing in the intervening two decades has given me hope.

For what its worth, my feeling is that this 'struggle' will recede as the decades wear on. There is no doubt in my mind that there is an extreme fringe of the Islamic community who pose a threat to the UK. But by and large I would contend that in fact most British Muslims are happy to get on with their life. Many of them are quite at ease living within liberal Britain - which in itself is a factor ignored by many (often I hear the retort, "if they hate our values so much why do they stay in the UK" - I would respond by arguining that perhaps the reason they stay in the UK is actually they don't hate those values so much. There is one view in the UK that liberal values are under a constant (and existential) attack from minority interests in particular Muslim sensitivities. Now I thing there is a degree of truth in this but I don't think this is the whole story. It is highly likely that in the decades to come many third and fourth generation Muslims will (if they havben't already) adopt many of the tolerant and secular values of the UK.

Admittedly episodes such as the Danish cartoons provide a good example of the faultlines that are liable to emerge from time to time. But IMO it is a mistake to effectively use such incidents and extrapolate outwards and say this will be the default position for all Muslims in the UK vis-a-vis the liberal norms of society at large. Life tends to go on as normal. The threat of a clash of civilizations is vastly overstated in my opinion. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK have fundamentally similar interests to wider society - i.e. to have a decent job, house, family etc. I don't see this changing any time soon.

We need to remember that book burning in Europe led to the incineration of people in ovens.

Whats most depressing is that the Salman Rushdie affair should have led to the end of Islamic extremism in the UK.

Unfortunately, we didn't act decisively or with national, cultural, or civilizational confidence. We were paralyzed by postcolonial guilt, moral relativism, and our frankly racist assumption that we couldn't expect any better.

The disaster of twenty years ago thus turned out to be a small cloud at the head of a storm front.

@DavidShariatmadari ... My point was/is that today is the 200th birthday of the greatest Englishman, and arguably the greatest thinker, ever. And moreover a man whose book made all the Abrahamic 'constructs' of a god redundant. But what do I see splashed on the front page? Book burners!

As for the rest read @Waltz's excellent post. But if you want a tiny topical 'for instance' of how the Guardian connives at all this, then ask your colleagues why they, unlike other broadsheets, have not reported the arrest of a senior FCO official for incitement against jews.

almostinstinct

12 Feb 09, 10:18am (3 minutes ago)

If the British people who wish to enjoy the freedoms of a secular, democratic state don't wake up to this very real threat, they will one day find themselves aliens in their own country.

What secular state? That is part of the problem, the UK is presently not a truly secular state, or you could tell all religion, extremist or not, where to get off in terms of their violation of rights and wish to impinge on the state, etc.

The secular and democratic civil state is the best way to address all religious extremism.

BTW a proper constitiutional democracy would be a good thing too.

An interesting response Naza for which thanks. I hope you're right and that this is a 'teething' process. I am less optimistic, however, if one looks at the example of India, which has serious sectarian fault lines with deep historical roots. Also we have had Northern Ireland to remind us of the intractability of opposing faith positions, abetted by the search for political and regional power. But hey, fingers crossed...

Quest2008:

Yes the written word is important, but like the spoken word if you abuse someone or abuse someone's loved ones that person has the right to be offended.

Yes you have every right to be offended, but in 2009 there is nothing to prohibit the causing of offence to anyone on religious grounds. Were it not for the likes of Rowan Atkinson (pbuh) we would live in a society where you could find yourself in prison for 'abusing or insulting' someone based on their religious beliefs (which - let's face it - are chosen and not innate, much like political beliefs). As it was, the offence only applies to words or behaviour that could be described as 'threatening' (ie. the words "behead the insulters of the prophet"). I personally think this is a good thing.

Many people in the West fail to understand that whether right or wrong Muslims love Muhammad (pbuh) more that they love their own children or family members.

Some people disagree, but I don't. I undertand your point perfectly, although I think you are generalising somewhat. If someone is prepared to fly a plane into a building on religious grounds, then clearly the care more about their religion than even their own life. It is self-evident. However, not all Muslims are prepared to die, just as most would not be prepared to kill either.

I think the crucial point is this: If the Rushdie protesters, or the Danish Embassy protesters for that matter, had waved placards that said, "we are really rather offended by this behaviour, please don't insult our faith", only a bigot would fail to oblige them. Violent exhortations to murder those who are critical or mocking of Islam are only going to harden attitudes, not just against the fringe loonies who wave the placards, but against those who fail to condemn that behaviour and even those Muslims who do. Currently, the Muslim faith is regarded (perhaps irrationally) with a good deal of fear but not enough by way of respect. Whether the majority population ought to do more to accommodate violent extremism, or whether the wider Muslim community (and many on the liberal-left) ought to do more to condemn it is going to be a thorny issue for some time to come.

Quest, you said:

"20 years on dispite the liberal outrage, given the chance I'd still burn the book. !

Yes the written word is important, but like the spoken word if you abuse someone or abuse someone's loved ones that person has the right to be offended.

Many people in the West fail to understand that whether right or wrong Muslims love Muhammad (pbuh) more that they love their own children or family members.

And whether its the "satanic verses", "danish cartoons" or the next insult people will react however irrational the West's liberal elite think their feelings are."

I'm going to try to reply to you without being too condescending towards you, but I concede it will be difficult.

You didn't read the book, did you? Admit it. You were told by a friend of friend that Salman Rushdie insulted your prophet and that was enough for you. That's exactly how fundamentalist "rent a mobs" start. Just like most Muslims didn't view the Danish Cartoons. All it takes for lunatic fringe is a sniff of blasphemy and they lose any sense of reasonableness.

You said, "Many people in the West fail to understand that whether right or wrong Muslims love Muhammad (pbuh) more that they love their own children or family members."

Can I ask you why a civilization whose liberty is based on the freedom to blaspheme adopt your taboos? Ever seen the Life of Brian? Can I ask you why you think it is reasonable that others show the same deference to your prophet as you yourselves do? Why, exactly, would we be obliged to?

It's this simple: If you don't like the book, don't buy it. When your fundamentalist coreligionists start taking it upon themselves to dictate to the rest of society what it can and cannot read, you're importing Saudi style theocratic censorship into a liberal secular democracy. You live in a liberal secular democracy. Have the decency to keep it that way for the many diverse groups living in this nation, because politicians might like to treat Muslims as if they aren't worthy of being spoken to as adults over issues like these, but I happen to think they can handle the criticism without breaking out the nutjob rent-a-mob.

I think the crucial point is this: If the Rushdie protesters, or the Danish Embassy protesters for that matter, had waved placards that said, "we are really rather offended by this behaviour, please don't insult our faith", only a bigot would fail to oblige them

Actually, I don't think you would have to be a bigot not to oblige them. Part of leaving in a free society is the possibility of being offended. Time to get over it.

Reading the comments on this thread and I cant but help notice the polarisation of the British Liberal against Islam.
Which got me to ask why?
Do the lavish articles from the likes of the MCB on CIF contribute to peaceful interfaith relations?
Or if as I suspect are they having a negative effect.
If the latter how would you resolve this schism that appears to be tearing apart the UK. (If not Europe)

I have never read a more ridiculous list of complaints and paranoid 'they're taking over' theories. This from a country that conquered much of the globe and used entire continents for its own commercial gain.

Also, before everyone gets all high and mighty about how tolerant and open British society is, let's not forget all those obsenity trials that happened in the 20th century. Wasn't Ulysses banned well into the 30s? It isn't that long ago, and it still happens today.

"Twenty years on, we look back at events surrounding Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and how they shaped multicultural Britain"

Yes, they provide a perfect reminder as to why multiculturalism doesn't work.

Multiculturalism = Division and strife.

I cannot believe that anyone still backs it.

stuv wrote

My point was/is that today is the 200th birthday of the greatest Englishman, and arguably the greatest thinker, ever. And moreover a man whose book made all the Abrahamic 'constructs' of a god redundant. But what do I see splashed on the front page? Book burners!

Sorry, you exaggerate. Darwin was a very successful biologist, lucky to be in the right place at the right time with the right family connections and the right family history. Yes he was a great scientist, but greater than Newton or Faraday? I think not.

And (although personally I see the Abrahamic religions largely in terms of psychology and sociology), Darwin's work did not make them redundant. The rise of modern science, mostly since Darwin, has demonstrated that Biblical origin myths are factually incorrect, but most theologians with any knowledge will tell you that the stuff in Genesis is largely tacked on to the Bible and comes from various sources. As one of my lecturers described it many years ago, the Jews weren't really very interested in the creation of the world, they were interested in the Covenant. The book of Bereshit is something like "where did we all come from? Here's some stuff that the Bablylonians and the Assyrians think."

Darwin is important, but from the perspective of even 50 years in our future, Rushdie and the debate that he sparked off may be seen as equally or more so.

I wonder how many of the book burners actually read it first,there allways seems to be an element of "look how important I am" tyo these events.

Scatterbrain writes:

I have never read a more ridiculous list of complaints and paranoid 'they're taking over' theories. This from a country that conquered much of the globe and used entire continents for its own commercial gain.

If you think the British Empire was unjust for overrunning other cultures then you should oppose the overrunning of British culture. Unless you believe in revenge.

As well as Magnum opus darwinii, in 1859, JS Mill published "On Liberty".
What an anniversary! I'll let the reader consider the changes in political thought since then.

Perhaps the Guardian should have a celebration of its, the BBC, the Labour Party, the Left and liberals brave response to the fatwa, book burning and murders and defence of free speech.
It would save time and expense as these people and organisations could not be seen for dust. When the chips were down the left and librals scuttled off into the dark corners and sniped at Salman Rushdie for causing all the offence.
That is one major reason Salman Rushdie left these shores for the United States. The US political world defends and values its freedoms far better than the British political world
The left and liberals in the UK are cowards, appeasers and hypocrites. They do not value their culture or the freedoms that have been bequeathed them. We have seen this time and time again with the Left and liberal response to Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali,The Danish cartoons, this Dutch MP and his film to name just a few.
If it was anyone else the Left would tear them apart for threatening to shred our freedoms. The left have turned their back on the British and are flirting with Islam.
In the 1930s the political classes did nothing for the British in the depression and flirted with and appeased Facsism. We know where that led.
It is sad that the Left and liberals have abondoned their fight for freedom and defence of freedom and now defend religious and superstitious oppression, intimidation, misogyny, homophobia;sad for the British and for Islam.

That is part of the problem, the UK is presently not a truly secular state, or you could tell all religion, extremist or not, where to get off in terms of their violation of rights and wish to impinge on the state, etc.

The secular and democratic civil state is the best way to address all religious extremism.

One of the characteristics of a democracy is that every individual, relgious, extermist or otherwise, has the right for their views to impinge on the state.

@stuv

I would like to echo tumblehome's points that Darwin's work didn't make "all the Abrahamic 'constructs' of a god redundant". As the man himself would have strenuously emphasised.

And also to celebrate our mass coverage of Darwin...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/charles-darwin

Scatterbrain:

Also, before everyone gets all high and mighty about how tolerant and open British society is, let's not forget all those obsenity trials that happened in the 20th century. Wasn't Ulysses banned well into the 30s? It isn't that long ago, and it still happens today.

When was the last time a literary work was subject to the Obscene Publications Act? Have you never read "American Psycho"? It's been out for two decades. Stop making up bullshit arguments about the 1930s to defend the indefensible.

People seem to forget that the so-called 'true Brits/English' (ie the white population) of the British isles are in fact ancestors of 'foreign invaders' themselves. Don't forget that for hunderds of years the 'true' native inhabitants of the isles were subject to mass killings, exterminations of peoples, cultures, faiths and systems by the many, many tribes and armies that chose to bring themselves to this land. So to believe that this land is someone 'your right' is pure and simply wrong and demonstrates the ignorance which unfortunately will always be present as long as narrow-minded, uneducated people (white and non-white alike) exist.

As for the 'right' to burn books based on anger, obviously, we only have to look at recent history to see what this attitude can lead to. Nazi philosophy believed that by burning books, inconvenient histories and ways of thinking could be eliminated. Of course, this was taken a step further and people were eliminated alongside their written heritage. Do we want to live in a world where this is acceptable? Where the voice of opinion is not debated or proven to be unnacceptable, untrue or misrepresenting, but instead burnt and swept under the carpet, only to reappear at a later date in a more extreme form?

Is it understandable that some people would want to burn Rushdie's books? Well, let's ask this question. Is it acceptable to burn the Qur'an on the principle that its teachings anger some people? Likewise the Bible? Of course not. But what if some people value Rushie's texts more than the Bible and the Qur'an? Why should they have to endure this barbaric act without having the right to do the same to other people's beliefs and ways of thinking/living? Freedom of speech is a basic right of democracy and without it we are nothing more than slaves.

It all comes down to this. We all get angry. It's human nature and it's perfectly normal and healthy. We can debate, we can argue, we can denounce, we can proclaim. Look how amazing it is that we have the right to do all this. But that doesn't give us the right to exterminate other people's ways, whether it be Rushdie's books, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, hip-hop/R&B culture (yes, believe it or not there are Christians, Muslims and Jews who equally enjoy blasting their mobile phone stereos on the tube and buses much to people's annoyance), fried chicken-lovers (do you know how immorally and ungodly those chickens are treated in their short, sad life? - that question to Jews, Atheist, Christians and Muslims alike), vegetarians and everyone else on this planet.

We're all different but we're all human, so let's celebrate! (Yes, I'm an optimist...)

DavidShariatmadari

Stuv, is it really better that the Guardian ignore these things? It would be shameful if the Guardian endorsed book burning, but by covering it and the effects it has had on our society...well, that's really the point of a site like this isn't it?

The Guardian does not ignore them. But how it covers them matters. And how has it been covering Islam since the Rushdie Affair? Who have they been employing since Rushdie? Where is Faisal Bodi by the way?

This is a book that the Guardian may not endorse burning. Or maybe then again. It certainly employs people like Inayat who works for the MCB that still demands certain books be banned. But if this was some other sort of book, does anyone doubt that there would be calls for it to be banned - if it was sexist for instance? Racist?

The fact is there is a Red-Green alliance, either open or tacit. And one thing they agree on is banning books.

DavidShariatmadari

I would like to echo tumblehome's points that Darwin's work didn't make "all the Abrahamic 'constructs' of a god redundant". As the man himself would have strenuously emphasised.

I am sorry but manifestly Darwin made all Creation myths redundant. Not wrong. Just not necessary.

Notice that Darwin's work was controversial. But never banned much less burnt.