multicultural Britain

Multi ethnic Britain, too.

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

they have won

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

@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

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

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?

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

@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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

@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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

To paraphase. I may disagree with you but I defend your right to your views. Unfortunately it appears that only half of this statement is true to a large percentage of the Muslim peoples of the world. If you don't fit their'model of whats right' you have no right to life. Religion can be force for incredible good or evil and that applies to all religions. Anyone who belives they hold the absolute truth about what is gods will is deranged

Just because only one proud bookburner (Quest at 9.41am) has been on this thread shouldn't lull people into the belief that such views aren't ubiquitous in the UK even today - have a look at Muslim discussion forums, they're a scary eye-opener.

One curious thing I realised recently is that the taboo on representing Mohammed comes from the fact that a human being musn't be worshipped. But all evidence is that the Muslims who get mad over the Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoons get angry precisely because they do indeed worship Mohammed - hence all the 'pbuh' business too. Spot the contradiction...

We had book burning here in Germany too.
It started with books and ended with people.

Perhaps the burning of books should be considered as an internationally recognised alarm signal of a society in deep trouble.

@ macr -

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.

Firstly, the word you are searching for here is descendants, not "ancestors". Sorry but this is the second time this morning I've encountered this same mistake and its annoying.

Secondly, yes, we're the descendants of "foreign invaders" - invaders that the inhabitants already in situ fought tooth and nail to keep out (and more often than not, successfully - many more attempted invasions of Britain were repelled than succeeded). They certainly did not say "here, jump on the housing waiting list, have some benefits, and let us know which books you'd like us to burn".

Stuv

"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."

Eh? Give us some credit - we're quite capable of taking in more than one story on Darwin's anniversary.

Sacha

"Perhaps the burning of books should be considered as an internationally recognised alarm signal of a society in deep trouble."

Well how far do you want to take it?

Perhaps the huge numbers of people downloading child porn should be considered as an internationally recognised alarm signal of a society in deep trouble?

As far as I'm aware, in every country on Earth people do some pretty mad/bad stuff.

Wesycoaster

"they have won"

They have won what, exactly? Could you elaborate?

Won the lottery?
Won the book burning debate?
Won control of the world?
Won control of NASA?
Won the FA cup?

"Death to the Infadel!!!!": Islam: The Peaceful Religion.

Well 20 years on and the problems are still the same, if not worsened.
Multiculturalism does not exist, and reactions across Europe about this book are proof of this. A minority so badly integrated and so proudly estranged from the culture that surrounds it, is a clear testament of the failure of the utopia called multiculturalism.
Civilised countries publish good books, civilised people read good books, accept criticism, if any, by taking it on board and reply with the same cutting edge criticism; clearly we are living in a society where some minorities are still accustomed to different means of communications, different limitations of personal freedoms, which are a milestone as well as the essence of our European culture.
British society - as well as other northern European counterparts - is in deep trouble if such problems are not acknowledged first and then readily dealt with; I think there are still too many naïve people here who have blindly endorsed a very theoretical and unpractical approach towards integration and coexistence of different cultures.

@DavidShariatmadari and @tumblehome you are both wrong. Moreover it's not me that's claiming Darwin is our foremost thinker. Such as Daniel Dennett ("...the Leonardo of the New Renaissance" according to the Sunday Times), Jared Diamond and many leading biologists and phliosophers make the claim.

Darwin never "strenuously denied" his work undermined religious constructs, he left that to Huxley. But whenever pressed he echoed the feelings of another great scientist, France's Newton the Marquis de laPlace, who in answering Napoleon's question about why he, LaPlace, never mentioned God in his magnum opus on the origins of the Universe simply said "Je n'ais pas besoin de cette hypothese la".

Je rest ma valise.

Batley

"If the latter how would you resolve this schism that appears to be tearing apart the UK. (If not Europe) "

What schism tearing apart the UK?

Some Muslims are a bit round the bend.

- 50 of them burn a book to make a point. 50 white British protestors set fire to McDonalds to make a point.

In France they burn sheep.

Sh*t happens.

People carry on.

Is there a schism in society because large(?) numbers of British men download child porn?

Every singe day of the year people do mad/bad/criminal stuff.

It's the job of the police/courts to deal with it.

The emphasis on what those Muslims do is interesting as we like to know/observe/debate but if most of us stay sane and reasonable why would it lead to a schism?

.... left arguments about god to Huxley ...

Johnstuartm

"The US political world defends and values its freedoms far better than the British political world"

The internets - it proves you wrong.

The US political world serves some and certain Americans ain't worth a sack of sh**

I have to laugh - Native Americans, for example, have the right the free speech (in theory)which proves how superior the US is to every other country on Earth.

I watch 24 - sometimes the script promotes a certain dewey eyed/romantic view of America that is actually laugh out loud funny.

Oh, for goodness sakes...

1) Book burning in Nazi Germany: when this occurred, it wasn't centrally orchestrated; If you read kershaw's excellent biog of Hitler 9and much other historiography), you'll see that there was an element of competition amongst the fanatics in the nazi state to out do each other. hence, book burning was another expression of loyalty. We do NOT live in such a state and suggestions that we're approaching such a thing are expressions of wild paranoia and a poor grasp of history; get real!

2) Muslim discussion groups: yes, some are scary, but then again have you read the sun's "have your say" section recently? That's pretty scary. Like this section, free comment blogs invite the loonies to come out of the woodwork and fire their mouths off. In Muslim communities, as in the majority community, there is a huge amount of macho posturing from ill educated young men who want to show off to their mates. "My Bomb's bigger than yours". It goes on in all societies and there are stupid people in the white community too. Have you looked on the BNP or any other far right website? They're much the same.

3) The rushide affair: these days, one can quite happily get a copy of "the satanic verses" from waterstones bradford; that's where I got my copy from, it's on the shelves next to midnight's children and other SR works. We've calmed down a lot since then and there are other more pressing problems; that of poverty, unemployment and ongoing islamaphobia in the tabloid mass media. The (mostly muslim) students i teach have mostly never heard of the satanic verses; occassionally one has and I get him or her to read it; sometimes they approve, sometimes not. Mostly, though they just learn a bit. We do need to look back on the rushdie affair and learn from it, but i think that the most important lessons is that people have different views and some will not approve of things in a way which upsets you. As long as they abide by the law (and that includes laws on incitement to murder), then people have a right to protest about that which they dissapprove of. the rest of us have a right to disagree, and when it's all done, we'll go home and get on with our lives. Let's not panic or exagerate, we're all human after all.

vinn-
I don't think your argument that the existence of a non-integrated minority is clear testament to the failure of a multi-cultural society holds any water. Obviously there are problems with many areas of British/European society, but this does not indicate that they are 'failures'. Just needs a bit of work old chap!

John

"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."

"now defend religious and superstitious oppression, " - where?

"intimidation," - where?

"misogyny" - even Leftist women?

"homophobia" - that was the Tories and Daily Mail readers, surely?

Homophobia, Muslims and the left.

Over at the Daily Mail website huge numbers of "silent majority" Brits post messages that hardly sing their support for homosexuality and many border on the "Bloody homosexuals" or are openly "Homosexuality is a sin" type.

So, therefore, why are the left criticized for "supporting homophobia" while the British Right buy a 'paper that is openly anti-homosexual?

The logic defeats me.

Waltz,

Secondly, yes, we're the descendants of "foreign invaders" - invaders that the inhabitants already in situ fought tooth and nail to keep out (and more often than not, successfully - many more attempted invasions of Britain were repelled than succeeded). They certainly did not say "here, jump on the housing waiting list, have some benefits, and let us know which books you'd like us to burn".

Do go and learn some real history, there's a good chap.

Admittedly Gudrun converted to Christianity, but that's not to say that all the inhabitants of the Danelaw did.

William the Bastard had about as much legitimacy as Harold.

And William of Orange was to some extent an expression of the extent to which Dutch immigrants and culture had taken over in the South and East Anglia.

Three major waves of immigration do you? Not to mention the inhabitants of Bristol, where I understand that a lot of the longer-term white population has a significant number of West Indian genetic markers.

There's a little hill in South Wales that makes the point - it's called (if my memory serves me correctly) Mynydd-Pen-Bre - three successive waves of occupation.

@ nails
@ speedkermit
Nowhere in my comments have I condoned violence.

@ Cassiopeia9000
Dont patronize me with your condescending assumptions.
I have the right to express an opinion just like you.
I have the right to be offended and express that offense in anyway I choose, within the laws of the land I reside in. Despite you dubious notions of the origins of civilization.

how tedious......
really it is hard to have patience with people like this

a book does not LEAP into your mind. You must 1) buy the book and then 2) actively move your eyes right and left across the pages and cognicise all those words and form a mental internal idea of the books contents.

If you don´t like the book, don´t read it.

If you want the whole world to get curious about the book that you are prepared to kill over, burn it. Then nominate a few spin doctors to capitalise on the event to promote your agenda. However, that´s opportunism and parasitic.

Burning books is not that much different from smashing planes into towers - less people will die, but it cannot be justified intelligibly.

The time is well remembered.

The shock of the sheer crass childishness of apparent adults burning a book in public was followed by calls for Rushdie's murder by the crazed Ayatollah from Iran.

But even worse was when the BBC went around the UK interviewing Muslims to see what they thought and we heard the casualness with which so many thought it was quite OK to murder a man for an obscure sentence buried deep in a book that most people would not read.

After having a lifetime of not being racist or having any particular dislike of religion I remember clearly thinking - "what have we let into this country".

It seemed at the time that crazy Enoch Powell might have been right, but that he was talking about the wrong people - and that was proved when we were attacked on 7/7.

And I remember how the government made no protest at all - the clear reason being that nothing should give any kind of offence to the people they do their business with in the Middle East - when they should have loudly told all Muslims here that the essence of our culture is the right to say your thoughts without fear of punishment - and that we are going to defend it come what may.

Since then two things have happened I did not think possible then:

That I would campaign for all religion to be seen for the ridiculous logic that it is, and that all children should learn in school the elements of philosophy that would help them stop believing in gods that do not exist, and stop them having reverence for prophets and others elevated to the level of semi-gods.

The second is the recreation of the Labour party that I always voted for into a rationalist party for all people, instead of the pathetic collection of self serving middle class politically correct daddies that it has become. The banning of a Dutch politician from entering this country is the high point of this.

The greatest cause for optimism is that the atheist population of the UK has finally begun to realize they are the majority and are now beginning to stand up and point out to religionists how wrong, and ridiculous, they are - these bus slogans are only the beginning.

Soon we will not critizise religion any more - we will just laugh at it.

@loony

It's sometimes possible to believe that you live on a different planet from the rest of us. Galloway and his leftist acolytes getting into bed with islamists in the so-called "Respect" coalition is an indication of how far some parts of the "left" have fallen from grace. Where is the condemnation of muslim homophobia from that quarter? Where are the outspoken denunciations of the treatment of non-muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other nearby countries?

As for leftist women and misogyny, you try getting Bindel to comment on muslim attitudes to women. She won't touch it with a bargepole (kudos to Cath Elliott who is less of a scaredy-cat in this respect).

Open your eyes, loony.

theloony-
why does the logic defeat you- isn't it possible that both left and right can be homophobic? Does it matter that the left's version comes from a different place ideologically? The result is the same in the end, presumably.

Archaos - re Muslim discussion websites.

The difference is that the Muslim sites with bizarre comments on are ubiquitous, whereas of course a BNP site would contain stupid comments, but the vast majoirity of sites contain generally sensible discussion.

The few private conversations I have personally had with groups of Pakistani-back-ground Britons have reinforced the view that such bizarre comments are not reserved for discussion forums. Whereas as a white person I have NEVER been involved in a conversation where my jaw has dropped with astonishment.

Perhaps I'm just peed off because my (gay) brother's muslim workmates have been making him depressed with endless jokes like 'when we get sharia we can kill you'.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

The danish cartoonists and the persons who want to kill Rushdie are equally foolish. The only acceptable intolerance is the intolerance of foolishness.

That level of stupidity can destroy the world.

Freedom of expression should be acceptable only where reckless and needless provocation is forbidden. In my opinion, preservation of human dignity is more important than free expression - the danish cartoonist should be censured for being what he is, a pestilence, and a bringer of social division. We could all do it, express ourselves as obscenely as we want, until we bring society to its knees. But in my opinion such destruction is criminal - as criminal as arson or robbery with violence. No one person should ever be allowed to destroy the common property that community is, whether or not freedom of expression allows them to.

Anyone who attempts to destroy human life should be removed from society, jailed for life. The penalty of Rushdie's actions is not death.

Quest 2008, I would gladly uphold your right to burn this book. But only if you pay for the copy and clean up the mess afterwards. I would also gladly wipe my a*** on a copy of the Sun, but I don't really want to do physical harm to anyone else who reads the rag.

To be pedantic Macr, the indigenous peoples of the British Isles weren't obliterated, so many posting here could be direct descendents of those people.

Why are Muslims allowed to exercise their right to free speech to spread hatred against, inter alia, gay people when they themselves attack others for exercising their free speech by criticising (or ridiculing) Islam?

Muslims should either stop from making any comments whatsoever regarding gay people which may be construed as hate speech - OR - if they are unwilling to compromise on their religious views, they should permit others to be equally uncompromising in their criticism of Islam.

Otherwise, they're just a bunch of hateful hypocrites - which is a common trait among religious people in general.

SpottedChui

Freedom of expression should be acceptable only where reckless and needless provocation is forbidden.

Whether an expression of opinion is 'reckless and needless' is a matter of opinion. Who should decide? The person who says they have been offended? As an example, if I say the typical BNP member is a sadistic incestuous nazi-worshipper should that be banned if a BNP member takes offence? Or if I say to a Muslim/Christian/Jew, 'God is a figment of your imagination', should that be banned because they take offence?

I'm all in favour of a multi-culturalism that allows Hasisdic Jews, Amish, Muslim or Hindu communities to practice their way of life in this country. But when a minority thinks it can dictate to the majority, demands special privileges, and issues death threats against fellow citizens, we have to fight them tooth and nail.

The spineless left-wing establishment - the political classes, the media, and academia - have betrayed this country by refusing to stand up to the bullies. Hard-won freedoms, fought for for centuries, freedoms for which many gave their lives to preserve, have been thrown away in less than a generation. The left will never be forgiven.

A shame - such a beautiful religion can be so easily swayed by immature, insecure fanatics who's primal need for a identity club mar their evolution as a human being. Allah as Christ were secure in their faiths and would never condone killing someone that threatened their tenets because their beliefs were firm in their hearts. It's always the followers that ruin the original faith...
Blessed are the peacemakers.

Using your right to free speech to burn books. That is the definition of sacrilage.

@ Cassiopeia9000
Dont patronize me with your condescending assumptions.
I have the right to express an opinion just like you.
I have the right to be offended and express that offense in anyway I choose, within the laws of the land I reside in. Despite you dubious notions of the origins of civilization.

Indeed Quest, you do. I'm glad you're getting the concept of free speech now, because it also involves patronizing you. And saying things about religion that people who are devout followers of that religion do not want to hear. See, the same right that allows me to post my comments is the same right that allows you to criticize me for criticizing you. No burning necessary. Isn't it wonderful? It would seem your idea of free speech revolves around, "If it hurts my feelings, it should be censored."

You can burn as many books as you like. Knock yourself out. Have a big pyre burning in your garden. Let the smoke be seen for miles around. I'm not going to stop reading books that you think ought to be burned just because they hurt your sensibilities, though.

My "dubious" notions on the origins of civilization? What? I didn't say anything about the origins of any civilization. But yes, I do happen to rather like my civilization which gives me, as a woman, many more rights than I'd get in...certain other countries. And that civilization is a post-Enlightenment civilization which does not threaten or intimidate over religious criticism, debate or mockery. So I love my dubious concept of civilization. Mind if I ask what your problem is with that?

@Theloonyfromcatford

Muslims have no monopoly on book burnings

It wasn't the book burning that was the problem. It was the bookshop burning and the threats and the killing.

Widers gets banned because he says the Koran is a facist book and in 1989 muslims hold book burnings... and demand the death of the author.... Mmmm, facists like to burn books don't they? I seem to recall being taught in a history lesson about someone else having a torchlight book burning ceremony.... lot of men dressed in brown shirts... what was their name again? Oh thats it, the Nazi party... they loved a good book burning.

How typical of religion - that it hides behind their comfort blanket of "offense" instead of actually addressing the issues raised by Rushdie and, more recently, Wilder's Fitna movie. That, instead of being confident that they will logically show them to be wrong and misleading, they have to resort to childish bullying, threats, and barbarism.

When will the Islamic world wake up to the fact that it will not be given preferential treatment? If their holy book - the Qur'an - xenophobically states that all non-muslim communities ought to be either conquered and made Islamic or slaughtered, should we protect that freedom of expression? Not if they're going to take away the Rushdie's and Wilder's freedom of expression to say that that behaviour is barbaric and unwelcome.

The great irony, of course, is that if their legal cases to ban the book and film are successful, there is little doubt that a subsequent court case would result in the banning of the Qur'an because of its more prolific hate-filled content.

Now, people who respect democracy, freedom of speech, and the free marketplace of ideas don't want anything to be censored. But the Islamic world is not like that. Again, when will the Islamic world wake up and realize that they must not be given preferential treatment - to have all opposing books censored but not their own?

Someone buy them an alarm clock. Please.

I mentioned this comment in the post but I guess it is related to this video too.

by the way, the fatwa thing is just something symbolic, even though it orders to assassin like in Salman Rushdie case. but I didn't see any other fatwa like that large anymore.

by the way, I found this iranian site in which burn Qurans but even iranian gov didn't issued any fatwa, although they are dead by sharia rules but they don't generally issue fatwa on any outrageous occasions like this one. Perhaps they learnt their lessons too.

AnIranian,

A fatwa is not just "something symbolic," as you well know. It is a ruling. That doesn't mean everyone will adhere to it as Islam has no central authority, but calling it simply symbolic is not true.

There are other such fatwas on:

Geert Wilders
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The son of a prominent Hamas member who left the organization, went to America and converted to Christianity (can't remember his name).
Milwan Huckajabee (sp) who wrote a book in his native country entitled "Sex and Sharia" and fled in fear for his life to Europe.
The cartoonist who drew the "bomb" cartoon.
Etc.

You cannot be a prominent critic of Islam in the West without looking over your shoulder. Maybe the symbolic fatwa on Wilders complements the symbolic 24 hour security he has to live under to protect him from symbolic attack.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

Theloonyfromcatford wrote:
What schism tearing apart the UK?
Mr LFC. (I presume that you are a he) This article is about the events and the subsequent ramifications of the Fatwa made against Salman Rushdie and his book the Satanic Verses
At the time People in the UK were astounded at how a group of people who until then had remained silent in the background of the UK heeded the call of a religious cleric (who isnt according to the mantra of Sunni Islam a Muslim) in a faraway land and took to the streets in a mass protest over a book.
The British just didnt know how to cope :
Should they clamp down hard on these people like they had with the Miners stating that the freedoms of the West are there for everybody and not just the preserve of one religious group.
Or should they clamp down hard on Salman Rushdie like they have just done with a certain Dutch MP.
They did neither and took the middle route,
That of acquiescence to a religious minority in the name of religious tolerance while keeping Salman Rushdie under lock and key for his own safety but ultimately keeping him out of the Public eye.
That weak kneed response sent out the message to Islam that the West (But in this case the UK) would never stand up to anybody who preached intolerance while quoting the Koran .
Ill admit that the vast number of petty Media Islamic intolerance stories are not instigated by Muslims but rather by White Non Muslims in the UK who are scared to offend the Mullahs. In the UK nothing ruins your day (and your social standing) than been referred to as a racist.
Yet that doesnt remove from the equation the large number of Islamic idiots who use the Non Muslims understanding of the faith in which to simply have their way and anybody who objects is silenced by bringing out that stated racist card.
The problem here as exemplified by the majority of posts on a very liberal newspaper. Is that people are starting to say enough is enough. Now I dont know about you. But I meet lots of people on a daily basis who air their grievance by starting with You know me Im not a racist but I am fed up with .
Clerics who while hating the West fight tooth and nail in which to stay here.
Immigrants who once here left to live life in a pure Islamic country but again fight tooth and nail in which to get back to the UK they hate.
The use of religion to remove any aspect of the British way of life that offends them.
The right to subjugate females in the name of religion.
And the rest.
People are speaking out that enough is enough. But heres the catch. People here and elsewhere are shouting out that multiculturism doesnt work. But the thing is, it does. Everybody else who lives in the UK manages to live in perfect harmony. However the people of the faith I belong to cant. Because of them other faiths are now starting to protest over the smallest upset.
Now either we say enough is enough and start afresh or we allow the UK to fragment into something resembling Bosnia, Lebanon or even Bradford. Where different faiths have no dealings with one another and all that transpires is distrust and hatred of one another.

I would say walk down any street in the Uk and ask the folks what they think about Muslims. But apparently speaking your mind is a hate crime and thus questions which need to be asked are left unanswered and in its place builds mistrust.

Maybe there lies the reason so many people speak out on the internet.
I dont know about you, but i fear for the future. Crying wolf everytime anybody mentions Islam hasnt done race relations any good no matter what the MCB tell you.

That schism you say that isnt tearing the UK apart is here all it needs is a push and all hell will break loose. As i keep on saying I have brown skin and a Muslim name and thus cannot hide from the 98% of the British population who arent Muslim but who may feel the need to teach me a lesson on how to live in the West if say another bombing transpires.

The irony here is, not only was I born in the Uk, but I have earned 5 medals serving it.

Batley, mate,

Enough is enough. But being fed up doesn't equate to teaching people a "lesson." I have no inclination to teach anyone a "lesson" based on their skin tone or religious persuasion.

What worries me, though, is what you say. You say "Everybody else who lives in the UK manages to live in perfect harmony. However the people of the faith I belong to cant."

You know more Muslims than I do. Why can't they? Is it because the non-moderates want Sharia instead of common law? Is it because they don't want to mingle with other cultures?

Can we really blame those people for not integrating, in the end? When they first took to the streets calling for Rushdie's death, we should have said "No, that is unacceptable," but we looked the other way. We have essentially done nothing to encourage integration and nothing to defend our core values. The message we have given out is therefore that our values don't really mean that much. We have acted as if our values don't mean that much.

The reason other groups are pretty much getting along and some Muslims aren't, in my opinion, is because the other groups in society adhere to values which are very similar to our own. The firebrand clerics who have successfully brainwashed the youth pumped them full of values antithetical to our own and to those of other groups in society.

I guess you could say multiculturalism works when the other cultures living within a nation have values congruent enough with the host culture for that to be possible.

I know that there are plenty of Muslims who have no problem with our values. I study with them. But what are we to do about the rise of extremist thought that it doesn't come to cause a split right down the middle of society?

I agree with most of what you've said, and that really bothers me. There must be something that can be done that can avoid segregation on the levels you're describing...

What I remember most clearly about the Rushdie affair is being appalled at how few left-wing writers and journalists expressed their strong opposition to the fatwa. Very few of them said anything like "This may be a book offensive to Muslims, but NO ONE has the right to call for the death of an author." Many of them seemed almost to imply indifference to Rushdie's fate, especially those who indicated that they liked neither the writer nor his writing.

And I consider myself quite left-wing.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

Batleymuslim
You know alot about it but I think kids in the next generation or so will get fucked off with the self-imposed ghetto these hardline clerics, self appointed community leaders and over-zealously pc public appointees, that the whole thing will blow away; frankly they'll identify differently. But if I was ayoung male muslem now, I'd be bored rigid with the narrow conservative sets of behaviours I was bid to observe, like some horific flashback to 1920s Britain.

A lot of these lads now, they wear the beards and the po-faced earnestness in the same way as left wing students did in the late sixties and early seventes, but at least they were geting their rocks off then too ! What a straight-jacket to put late adolescent men into. It's a matter of time before the thing diseminates again - and I know for a fact that before 9/11 a lot of these 'disaffected muslems' so many of the Kommentaraiat seem to be making a brisk business out of vouching for, those lads were getting stoned and trying to get laid, and the girls were trying to get careers and have a good time. It's a bump in the road all this cultural differences bullshit, at least to my eyes. I do of course, hope my perhaps slightly more optimistic outlook is the right one !

Best wishes matey!

Wow, I wish I'd proofed that before I hit send. Hope it's still comprehendable.

@Quest2008

Nowhere in my comments have I condoned violence.

That's right, you haven't.

After I clicked "Post" I thought that I should write "Don't you agree" to show that I was inviting your agreement rather than disagreeing with something you wrote, but hey, the fingers click faster than the mind thinks:-)

I notice that you still haven't condemned violence, you have simply pointed out that you haven't condoned it. But I will take the liberty of presuming that you condemn it.
In which case I am glad that we agree.

Rushdie can write what he likes.
You can buy whatever books you like and then burn them, if that's what you want to do with them.
Nobody gets hurt.

Violent, mysoginistic, homophobic cavemen offend me, but hey, what can you do?

Now that dutch guy...fascist! racist! ban him, ban him!!!!

As Heinrich Böll already said before "books burn badly". Apparently you need paraffin.... Time to overcome the two terrors of our time : oil and religion!

Wesycoaster

"they have won"

No, they have not!
British publisher, who wouldn't be intimidated, writers, who came out in support, the government, who protected Rushdie, and the public, who voiced their disagreement with the fatwa - they won! They defended the principle of democratic right of free speech, well done for that, everyone involved then. I have recently read the book and found it very good (clever and hilarious), though I could see, how it might offend some muslims.
Another thought on this topic is, that we have today an author,who has to live with a death threat. This time the the attac against free speech comes from the all powerful catholic Italian Mafia against the author of the book Gomorrha, Roberto Saviano. Unlike the Muslims in the western world, the forces behind this death threat have infiltrated already many powerful institutions of Western Europe and is changing the way, business are run. They are involved in international banking, in governments, in media. A force, that has never renounced a death threat.

Twenty years on -

Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie

Shocking News.

[advertisement]

And then Mr Wilders said: "I am in a detention centre at Heathrow ... I am detained. They took my passport. I will not be allowed to enter the country. They will send me back within a few hours.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5718039.ece

In Defense of Wilders
By Jamie Glazov

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CCD1E0FA-235B-4CB1-A4D9-D4611738D01B

And make no mistake: even though the Muslims in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the West present themselves as embattled victims of racism and "Islamophobia," that is exactly what is going on here: this is just one part of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference's efforts to silence...

F*#king feck - another conspiracy !

The parallels between Rushdie and Wilders are obviously quite something, but the difference surely is that Rushdie's book was not criticism of Islam as a nation, but a constructive analysis of anguish felt by the colonialised subject, the existential confusion experienced by migratory travel, and some of durgy and mythical elements of the holy Koran. Wilders' film is based on the belief that Islam is about flying planes into buildings, or that it was bound to end up that way from the start. Rushdie's book was worth the fight, Wilders is just trying to get a fatwa for notoriety. Rushdie's fight was about freedom to criticise for good reason, Wilders is using hyperbole to gain prominence. The problem is this; was it right to ban his entry to save him looking worth the listen, or was it wrong to ban him for much the same reason in a different way?

To the Muslims that are all uppity about a 'novel' is it that you don't get that Mohamed is simply a literary device drawn from fiction?

Muslim academic says research leads him to believe Muhammad is a mythical figure

What a tragedy for the UK that it has retreated from common sense and is under the thumbs of loudmouths who incite the less than sophisticated to perpetrate violence based on irrational religious superstition.

No hope here folks.

LucyQ

Maybe that is...

thestar.com

Perhaps Canadians have all become fascists.

edwardrice - what up? You don't really believe that Mohamed was a real character? Did you get the bit in the story where he flies around here and there on a magic pony that had the face of a woman, the body of a horse and the wings of an eagle? Go figure fantasy.

While this episode highlights a key difference between cultures it also highlighted the fact that Muslims feel even today that wider society does not protect them through laws will not let them integrate either. The Rushdie affair showed just how much of the laws the British Muslims can use to protect themselves such as the blasphemy laws, which only applied to Christians.

Muslims reacted to show their anger, yes at times it was overblown, but that's what gets peoples attention. What the wider society - the media and the politicians at the time and even today don't get is when they claim they are a multicultural society means you have to at least cater for the cultures.

Now there is the reversal a rejection of Multiculturalism and the advocacy of a cohesive society - whatever that is? How can society be cohesive if one part of it is deliberately excluded? The point of the west is anything that criticises other cultures is freedom of speech, if it is a criticism of the west it is pure hate or envy or jealousy or something that vain!

The Rushdie was a political affair, but it showed something clear if the British government can not provide the resolution that Muslims sought or were seeking then others will try and claim they have the answer as Khomeini.

By the way, it wasn't Khomeini's fatwa that started it, that just merely increased the international dimensions of it, it was actually already an issue, by the time the Iranian leader weighed in it blew out of portion.

"Shaped multicultural Britain"?

"Raped" more like...

"Muslims reacted to show their anger"

Yes, a couple of thousand of them twenty years ago in the UK. This is now a dempgraphic majority ? Why ? You prefer this to the miniscule protest in London in 1989 ?

"wider society does not protect them through laws will not let them integrate either."

Only the most hardline fundamentalists think anyone should be prosecuted for lampooning or questioning religion - no-one prosecuted Monty Python did they ? No - the rest is whipped up by the cynical and politically motivated. And also, were I even to visit a predominantly Muslem country, I would abide by their culture/traditions/religions without question.

The ghettoisation of poor Asian and African immigrants is proffited upon by divisive, unelected, reactionary men who want to denude thier weakest of basic rights fought for by trades unionists in this country over acentury, yet have lived comfortably enough for decades within their host nation, with few demands from that state on their alliegance, than pay their taxes and not bomb people.

If I moved to Cairo and demanded rights for the Christain oppressed poor - how long would you give me ?

I have not read the Satanic Verses (and I am pretty sure that most of the ignoramuses who burnt it hadn't either) although I might now. Regardless of that, this was a classic case of people wanting to be pissed off at something, never mind what, and they found a release in this book. The only reason that they got offended is because they went out of their way to be offended. No one put a gun to their heads and said 'read the Satanic Verses'.

The more important issue is why shouldn't we make fun of religion, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, or Great Spaghetti Monsterism. Religion should be a figure of fun. Here we have a concept with no basis in reality, with no supporting evidence, and which somehow has managed to be instrumental in, if not the cause of untold bloodshed and misery. If you compare Islam, Christianity, Judaism, what do you really have. You have a bunch of fairy tales told by desert nomads around the fire whilst they were herding their camels from one watering hole to another in the bronze age to dark age. The hero in Judaism (God) is a child abuser (See Abraham and Isaac), a genocidal murderer (the slaying of the first born), a warmonger (see the rules of war in Judges) amongst other things. The hero in Christianity (Jesus) is a complete pussy - I mean if you had to get into a fight with anyone in the world, you know that even if you were the scrawniest person on the planet, you would still be able to kick the shit out of this wet blanket. And the hero of Islam (Muhammed) is a day dreaming simpleton.

I think it is wrong to needlessly offend people, but their ideas are fair game. However, I would qualify this by saying that if people hold particular ideas which are so ridiculous as to think that it is justifiable to murder a person because of a book someone has written then those people should rightly be condemned and ridiculed.

Sacrani can try and backtrack as much as he likes, but the reality is that his comments were not those worthy of a person in a modern free country, and his comments about what should happen to Rushdie were reprehensible, and it is right and proper that he should be made a figure of fun, and have the piss ripped out of him and his religion if what he said was an accurate reflection of what his religion espouses.

If I want to burn a copy of the Koran or the Bible, why shouldn't I? I wouldn't do it, not because I might offend adherents to those particular faiths, but because it seems to me offensive to destroy any source of knowledge regardless of how warped the knowledge contained within happens to be. To my mind, it is far worse to burn a copy of the Satanic Verses than either the Koran or the Bible. To do so would be to offend a man currently alive and capable of feeling hurt at such an act (although I personally suspect that Salman Rushdie wouldn't give a fuck, just so long as I had paid for it), as opposed to the authors of the Koran or the Bible who are dead, and cant complain.

I disagree with those who object to the Danish cartoons. I saw them online and a few of them were rather funny, some of them were offensive, but nothing of any note, and nothing which you would say was any more or less offensive than for instance, Life of Brian would be to a practicing Christian. If someone's belief in their own belief system is so weak that they think that the supposed omnipotent and omnipresent creator of the universe is not big enough to rise above a few scribbles in a danish scrapbook, then their god is not worth respecting or worshipping and they should just grow up.

What I really hope for above all else is that a representative of a religion, any religion will do, sues someone else for causing offense to that religion - any blasphemy test case would be great. Because if it ever comes before a court, and the basis of the religion has to be critically examined, I am pretty sure that it will be found in court that god doesn't exist and that religion is a pile of shit - that would be the ultimate irony, and surely the first nail in the coffin of the concept of religion.

By the way, Stuv, I don't think that Darwin was as great a thinker as Newton whose contribution to the modern world (calculus) is entirely without parallel, but Darwin is certainly a strong contended for the number 2 spot.

Bitterweed

A little more clarity please confused with you first paragraph!

"Only the most hardline fundamentalists think anyone should be prosecuted for lampooning or questioning religion - no-one prosecuted Monty Python did they ? No - the rest is whipped up by the cynical and politically motivated."

True it was only the hardline fundamentalist not every Muslim went out and protested! And yes it was politically motivated, so you point is?

The python thing may not of resulted in prosecutions but it was banned in several places and was restricted in others as well. What you going to do not go to Italy now?

"And also, were I even to visit a predominantly Muslem country, I would abide by their culture/traditions/religions without question."

Well yeah its only customary! But if you were a born citizen of that country your tone will change to reflect your needs. And youl will want to to be represented in societies institutions as well. The Muslim who protested in 1989 where also seeking a resolution through the British institutions, which basically failed them and highloghted the fact that Muslims are not really part of this country, hence the dissent and dissatisfaction which has led to the situation we are in today partly.

"If I moved to Cairo and demanded rights for the Christain oppressed poor - how long would you give me ?"

If you moved to Cairo, well that's fine and mighty of you, but get something straight Cairo never said it was a Multicultural society and it never pursued proper democratic and liberal values as we do. That's the difference right there, Cairo is not London! Since when did Cairo become the standard ???

We live by the principles we have stated, if Muslims were bad for expressing their anger at a book which they feel insulted them, they have that right. Just as people state its ok for Wilder's to come over here and express is vile views. But since we have banned and prosecuted many Muslims for doing what Wilder's has and is doing I think the law should be applied fairly.

My point in early post was that the Rushdie affair just showed that in reality Muslims were and still are treated as outsiders and yet we want them to exist by only our standards thus restricting their freedoms of culture and values.

The Muslims are not visitors like you to Cairo or elsewhere they are born citizens and have been and demanding rights as they should as citizens for themselves for their needs in this country.

Liberalism in one country, comrades?

rationale
Only a tiny minority of muslems felt aggrieved about much at all in this country before 9/11. In fact most people born under that particular religion viewed themselves, even third generation, as Bangladeshi, or Pakistani.

In that sense, Osama Bin Laden won the war in the UK - temporarilly - by propaganda; his imams and their coercion has helped ghetoise and marginalise a generation of young men and women into an arid backwater of strict religious dogma. But as I've said elsewhere, soon enough, they'll get bored with the cultural and intellectual straight jacket imposed by these self serving career-men, and go back to what they were doing before 9/11 - getting on with their own careers, getting laid, stoned and generally enjoying life outside some sort of medieval theocratic tomb, with all its flat-earth dogma.

It really should be of the past, all this whining.

The Muslim Council of Britain on Geert Wilders exclusion:

'Mr Wilders xenophobic and repugnant views have been identified by a Dutch court, and are now confirmed by his official exclusion to the United Kingdom. It is now time to ask why Peers of Realm who promote such demagogues without any censure are allowed to be regarded as mainstream, responsible leaders in our community.'

The Muslim Council of Britain on the denial of a visa to Yusuf Al Qaradawi:

'The Muslim Council of Britain deplores the governments decision to refuse a visa to the renowned Islamic scholar Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The MCB recognizes the Prime Minister has been under immense pressure from the pro-Zionist and neo-conservative lobby in recent weeks to take this decision.'

Yusuf Al Qaradawi on Hitler, Muslims and Jews:

'Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers'

I agree with many of you. Every year this country feels less and less like the country we grew up in.

rationale
12 Feb 09, 11:16pm
"...The Rushdie affair showed just how much of the laws the British Muslims can use to protect themselves such as the blasphemy laws, which only applied to Christians..."
.
By 1989 the blasphemy laws in Britain had rightly fallen into disrepute and disuse, as ridiculous and anachronistic. It is hardly our fault as a society if one particular section (ie. certain muslims) still wish to live in the past. Multiculturism, if we must endure it, does not mean pandering to every whim of every querulous minority.
.
.
.
"..By the way, it wasn't Khomeini's fatwa that started it, that just merely increased the international dimensions of it, it was actually already an issue, by the time the Iranian leader weighed in it blew out of portion...."
.
Indeed, many muslims were entirely unaffected by the publication of the book. Khomeini's real problem over the Satanic Verses was that a figure clearly alluding to himself is parodied in the book. The 'fatwa' against the author was nothing but an act of spite and attempted revenge by a bitter twisted psychotic old man, an abuse of power which some might call 'unislamic', though that is a term whose definition is as slippery as an eel.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

greymatter

"By 1989 the blasphemy laws in Britain had rightly fallen into disrepute and disuse, as ridiculous and anachronistic. It is hardly our fault as a society if one particular section (ie. certain muslims) still wish to live in the past. Multiculturism, if we must endure it, does not mean pandering to every whim of every querulous minority."

Two things: first a Court ruling stated this clearly in 1990 that Blasphemy laws could only apply to the Church of England and no other religion! It was still in operation, but rarely utilised. It is only now that we are seeking its removal. So it is not Muslims seeking to go back to past ways, they were merely trying use a system that they thought included them and surprise it didn't!

You have to ask yourself how can you be part of a society that does not provide protection or guarantees, once you do then you know how Muslims feel.

Secondly, "Multiculturism, if we must endure it, does not mean pandering to every whim of every querulous minority."
Multiculturalism is in essence a notion of freedom. If it failed then the notion of freedom fails as we all can not cater for the individualism which freedom is established on. It only reflects how intolerant society is to those with different beliefs and thus highlights its un-free ideals or culture. Think Hitler and Nazism one culture, one ideology, one view, one race etc etc and the result is history!

I agree with your last statement that Khomeini was acting out of revenge and hate and reflects the modern Muslim paradigm that there are leaders (or so called leaders) which use religion to backup their "self interested acts", hence Al Qaeda and the Taliban are just the same using religion to justify their greed, their desire for power, their rage, their violence etc etc. In reality religion has little to do with politics, tribalism or nationalism but that is something the religious leaders do not expose simply because they lose power as a result of the truth.

ebert,

Freedom of expression should be acceptable only where reckless and needless provocation is forbidden.

Whether an expression of opinion is 'reckless and needless' is a matter of opinion. Who should decide? The person who says they have been offended? As an example, if I say the typical BNP member is a sadistic incestuous nazi-worshipper should that be banned if a BNP member takes offence? Or if I say to a Muslim/Christian/Jew, 'God is a figment of your imagination', should that be banned because they take offence?

Our courts of law should decide.

Bullies, using their "victimhood" and "sensitivity" to justify intimidation and even murder.

If only we had listened to Enoch Powell.

Frank598

100% correct!

(This response has been pre-moderated)

Cultural sensitivities ! These immigrants ( nothing wrong with immigrants, I myself am one, albeit from Europe ) seem to be grossly ignorant of the fact that fascists burned books, people and really rather everything they could get there hands on not to long ago. So the symbolism of burning a book by one of the world most important authors in the streets of enlightened Europe is extremely potent and sends a message of utter ignorance and violence. The Guardians unwillingness to clearly articulate against this outrage and display a regressive culture is damning. Say what you will about the Muslim minority on Europe, but golly gosh they have a long way to go before they truly arrive. Having left their poor homelands and sought a better life, they perpetuate the ignorance which made them leave in the first place. Men who obviously still have one foot in the valleys they left thirty fourty years ago are leading a discourse which they no longer understand. As gays, girls and straights begin to gel in a cosmopolitan reality, my generation begins to built a post racial/sexual world and Obama is President, we are subjecting ourselves to the 'intellectual' world which would in our culture be the Nazis or their supporters. The difference being that they wear funny hats and have foreign accents, making them somehow untouchable. Were 'whites' burning the Declaration of Human Rights, or the books of a famous non-White author, the reaction would be different.
This is why the Guardian is no longer a readable paper. It has lost its backbone. When the fascists are South Asian, its alright ( never mind their open anti-semitism ) when they are white working class "scum", it is an outrage. This is nothing new, I am stating the obvious. Just remember all the authors who left Germany and went into exile, chose suicide or were beaten to death at Dachau.
Democracy must defend itself, it must draw a line and stand up to the forces of utter ignorance. Otherwise it is not worthy.

Whenever I see photos of religious zealots burning tires, books and whatnot, they're always doing so in the middle of the day. Don't these people have jobs?

Damn fools, did any of them read the book?

@berlinsummer: Very much agreed. We wouldn't tolerate this behvior (some of which is criminal) from our own. We shouldn't tolerate it from others who look and dress a bit differently either.

And yes, book-burners are fascist. If you dislike the label being thrown your way: read books, don't burn books.

Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people. For a fifth of the world's population, Islam is both a religion and a complete way of life. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the majority have nothing to do with the extremely grave events which have come to be associated with their faith.

I have been lucky enough to live & work in Saudi Arabia, the home of the two holiest places in Islam.
I have worked in Indonesia which is the worlds most populous Muslim-majority nation and several other countries where Muslims were the majority.
What did I find?
Without exception, believe it or not these Muslims are ordinary people, just like you and me. They live, laugh, cry, sing, dance and die, just the same as you and I.
Like 99.99% of the worlds population, all they want is to be born, grow up, get married and get to see their children grow to do the same, and hope that they will weep at their passing. (I realise that the last para is not PC, but there you go!)
A true Muslim respects and reveres Jesus, and awaits his Second Coming. They consider him one of the greatest of God's messengers to mankind.
Muslims say that there is only one God, I agree, its just that we worship Him in different ways.
So what is the problem?
The other 00.01% of the worlds population!
These men who call for war against the Western world (or anybody who disagrees with them) will go to any extremes to make their point. They have no interest in the Quran; they are only interested in Power!
I hope and pray that they will not be responsible for another, bigger outrage than 9/11 or the bombings in London & Madrid and elsewhere. They are responsible for Muslim killing Muslim in Iraq and elsewhere. Even though the Quran lays down strict rules of combat which include prohibitions against harming civilians and against destroying crops, trees and livestock, they dont care, all they want is Power.
Should the worst happen, then I think the inevitable might happen, ergo a backlash against Muslims worldwide, they men wont care! They will just sit back and rub their hands in glee at the death and mayhem that they have created and say Look what I have created and gloat in their perceived Power. They will not give a seconds thought to the sorrow and pain they have inflicted on their brothers and sisters.
All Muslims of the true faith should stand up and say ENOUGH and STOP these warmongers in their tracks NOW.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

Commentators on this site who say that the government "gave in" or that the "Islamists have won" are not correct. The book was never banned by the British government, and Rushdie was given police proteciton, which is why he is still alive. Whatever the literary merits of the Satanic Verses (I found it boring and pretentious, but that's a personal reaction), nobody had the right to hurt its author or promote religious hatred. In the event, there were probably far more Muslims, in Muslim countries, than anybody else killed in the extremist violence started by the Islamists. Let us hope we are now over this stupid episode and can work hard on living together, whatever our religious beliefs of non-beliefs. And perhaps the media can tell us as much about the great Muslim philosophers and scientists of the past, about Muslim art and ordinary Muslim life today as they tell us about suicide bombers, who are, after all, rather a minority. Most religions have had their extremists and terrorists. It would be unfair to characterise them all as such today.

I am in no way offended that the book is being burnt. Neither am I offended by the book. Nor am I offended by other people being offended by this book.

However, while those that burn the book feel they have a right to do so as they have been offended by this book, does that not justify myself burning a copy of the Koran as I am offended by that book?

Now I know that doing so is considered an insult against Muslims and their prophet, so I choose not to, but by Muslims burning this book they have effectively given me the green light to do so to their sacred book. Why should they be allowed to do this to the Satanic Verses but I not to the Koran...Their choice of savior is their own, mine is mine.

I respect their choices, but equally they should respect mine. Unfortunately this is not happening and this is what needs to be re-asserted.

Wasn't it Heinrich Heine who said that people who start by burning books end up by burning people ("Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen")? And wasn't he talking about the burning of the Koran by the Spanish Inquisition? Heine's books themselves ended up on the infamous Nazi bonfire, presumably because he was both liberal and Jewish. And the Nazis bore out his prediction.

Midnights Children is an excellent piece of narrative and goes a long way to understanding the author growing up in the period after the grnting of independance.
Rushdie is a hugely misinterpreted and misunderstood writer especially among stthose muslims who would liketo send us all back into the middle ages.
How we have gotten to a situation like this and especially this week when an elected EU member of the dutch parliament is turned away from the UK beggars belief.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

The writing of books and a persons right to freedom of speech are two perfectly legal activities and ones which we should be proud to stand for.

Rioting and threats towards a persons life, are illegal acts. It is these illegal acts which our government should be condemning and not the innocent acts of an author.