Satanic Verses and Salman Rushdie

Vaibhav Wasnik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v​=9-71XyNMzHY

Rusdie did deserve what he got

Vaibhav Wasnik
yaar the bastard said something dirty about the prophets wives also. am not a muslim, but fully understand their anger. may be the ayatollah did atleast one thing right :).
Freedom of speech is an oxymoron. If the establishment does not like... what you say, it will make sure that your speech will be blocked by diplomatic means. Atleast the muslims are following their heart, the emotion which flows from the same is pure, instead of the brahmin-bania way of "sweet talk and fuck you, when you least expect" way of doing things.

Vaibhav Wasnik
yaar the bastard said something dirty about the prophets wives also. am not a muslim, but fully understand their anger. may be the ayatollah did atleast one thing right :).
Freedom of speech is an oxymoron. If the establishment does not like... what you say, it will make sure that your speech will be blocked by diplomatic means. Atleast the muslims are following their heart, the emotion which flows from the same is pure, instead of the brahmin-bania way of "sweet talk and fuck you, when you least expect" way of doing things.See More
Tuesday at 9:51pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik well, but i feel that mr rushdie should have been let go after he apologized and the ayatollah still asking for his head after an apology was not in good taste.
Tuesday at 10:01pm · LikeUnlike
+

+
Vaibhav Wasnik no, was seeing the stuff in the documentary.
Wednesday at 12:07am · LikeUnlike
+

Vaibhav Wasnik no time for such books man. but rushdie was consciously trying to play a mischief and just got what he deserved. the documentary shows the required proofs.
Wednesday at 12:09am · LikeUnlike

+
Commenter1 Vaibhav, what did Rushdie say about the prophets' wives? And is it true or false? Only if it is false is he to be blamed.
Wednesday at 2:17am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik He constructed imaginary situations, where the prophets wife's supposedly are members of a harem and the people of that town get really turned on hearing about this. PLease see the documentary it mentions this completely.
Wednesday at 3:24am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 Fair enough. But I think we should read the actual book to verify the claims of the documentary.
Wednesday at 3:25am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik You can go ahead with that. But the people who claim such passages are kushwant singh, penguin publishers and even Mr Rushdie does not deny such claims.
Wednesday at 3:31am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 Does Mr Rushdie agree to such claims? He cannot be expected to check out what everyone is saying about him and deny the false.
Wednesday at 3:32am · LikeUnlike
+Commenter1 Another thing that came up to my mind is: There should be symmetry. If Muslims don't like others slandering their heroes like Muhammad, they should also avoid slandering the heroes of other religions.
Wednesday at 3:34am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik where did they slander other religion. Btw, please see the documentary, I think you are completely missing the context of what the case against rushdie was. The documentary is unbiased, with rushdie himself narrating some portions.
Wednesday at 3:36am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 Islam claims that all the apostles are liars, since the apostles teached that Jesus was God, while Muhammad does not think so. They are free to disagree - just let them accept others' disagreement also.
Wednesday at 3:38am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik This disagreement is a cornerstone of their religion, just as the christian position of Muhammad lying of the non-ressurection of jesus is a cornerstone of christianity too. Rushdie's book was plain rabble rousing. Please note the difference.
Wednesday at 3:41am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 How do you distinguish rabble rousing from simple falsehood? After reading the Koran, I would say Muhammad's claims are as much rabble rousing as are Rushdie's claims.
Wednesday at 3:43am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Done with an intention to insult. Rushdie claims his work is a work of fiction, so the natural claim was that his intention was to mock. Muhammad's intention was to worship God.
Wednesday at 3:47am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 Muhammad massacred those who didn't agree with him. This proves that his intentions were power at any cost (there was no shortage of worship in Arabia before Islam), no better than Rushdie's mocking intentions.
Wednesday at 3:49am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Nope, christians and jews lived in the islamic kingdom. they were not massacred. The pagan religions of the time severely opposed and harrassed muhammad and his followers, so much so that he had to live mecca. He just retaliated.
Wednesday at 3:52am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Medieval_Christian_view​s_on_Muhammad

Christians called muhammad a false prophet so, muslims shouldnt be really blamed for their views on apostle's lying in this matter.
Wednesday at 3:55am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik http://www.religionfacts.c​om/islam/beliefs/other.htm

refuting your claims of massacres of christians and jews.
Wednesday at 3:57am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1
Hello, what was the Khaybar massacre (to cite just one)? What happened to the Assyrians? the Copts? The Babylonians? What happened to the huge Christian and Jewish population of the entire Middle East? There was already a religious system i...n Mecca. It was Muhammad who tried to change it forcibly - why do you present the rest of Mecca as if they are the first offenders? If Christians and Jews considered Muhammad a false prophet, he also considered the apostles liars, so if muslims are not to be blamed, so is Rushdie and others not to be blamed.See More
Wednesday at 3:57am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 Nothing refutes history, Vaibhav. The Koran itself prescribes Massacre. Why then should Muslims not do it?
Wednesday at 3:58am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 It is amazing that denials of Islamic massacre come from you, who are from Maharashtra (if I remember correctly). Do you know your own history? How did Sambhaji die?
Wednesday at 4:00am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 And instead of relying on Islamic apologists' selective quotes from the Koran to support their claims, why don't you read the whole koran yourself, or go to sites having more extensive quotations?
Wednesday at 4:03am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Dude, the old testament prescribes a lot of killing too. I am talking about Muhammad. He didnt massacre christians or jews. Please read what i wrote. The pagan tribes of mecca harrased and kicked muhammad out of mecca. He fought back. It wa...s a war. Not a salman rushdie issue who purposely wrote to hurt.

http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=mdYiUvQJEw4

That anti muslim thing of shivaji is a brahmin construct. The maratha intellectuals are striving to reducate the marathas of their real history. Please see the link above.See More
Wednesday at 4:04am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Commenter1, same thing is true also for the old testament, about some guy killing some other guy. All world religions have similar violent stories. What makes koran so special I dont understand.
Wednesday at 4:06am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1
Muhammad massacred Jews and Christians. He taught that in the Koran and hadith as well. What are you trying to deny? I already told you why the pagan tribes of Mecca turned against it. You have not responded to it. You have read neither the... OT or the Koran. So how do expect to see the difference? Your claim that Muslim invasions of India are a Brahmin story is simply not true. The Muslims invaded India and attacked Maharashtra. That is simple fact.See More
Wednesday at 4:08am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik http://www.creationtheory.​org/BibleStudy/Ref-Violenc​e.xhtml
Wednesday at 4:08am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 Again: you choose to read what others write about the Bible or Koran instead of reading it yourself!
Wednesday at 4:09am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik What you mean muslim invasions. Everyone was invading everything in olden days. what about christian britian invading and plundering india. I am not making any claims. I am giving you a link by maratha historians that show that the issue between aurangzeb and shivaji was territorial, with many muslims being in shivajis army and vice versa.
Wednesday at 4:10am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Hell better muslims invaded india. The country was a mess with inhuman casteism plundering the nation. It was the islamic sufi movements that inspired the eglatarian bhakti movement with saints such as tukaram etc bringing God to the masses.
Wednesday at 4:12am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter1 Neither casteist atrocities nor Sufism justifies the Islamic policy of invasion or killing others only because they disagree with them. It is absurd to justify murder, looting, etc. because it has some good effects! Similarly one can argue that murder is good as it controls population!
Wednesday at 5:14am · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor3 Ruin my fantasy or challenge it and you deserve to die? We are civilized? Hardly, just less hair and better ways to taunt those we hold in contempt. Fuck all wooden headedness and let those who waggle swords after umbrage fall directly thereon. Be gone idiots and crybabies. Pity that religions do not teach logic.
Wednesday at 5:51am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...
+
Commentor2 And the dalits deserve what they get, or what they don't get.
Wednesday at 8:45am · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor2
‎Vaibhav Wasnik Rushdie merely told a story that you don't even care to read, so why do Muslims had to get so worked up with it. He never even claimed it to be facts or anything. If someone writes a story depicting your mom (or if you ever ...have a wife) as a prostitute that does not give you the right to kill that person no matter how offended you get.

In your opinion, what do these people deserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Piss_Christ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Jesus_with_erection

http://www.guardian.co.uk/​world/2008/sep/03/religion​.art

and many others.

Why do you feel it is important to suck to the feelings of Muslims, while it is fine to trample on the feelings of Christians. Just cos they do not threaten you and are patiently awaiting the coming of the Christ to fix the things. Your own hypocrisy goes far beyond Commenter1 could ever reach. Commenter1 at least has a well defined aim and follows a path and states that clearly. While you indulge in the double talk. You are a bhramin in dalits clothing. What exactly is your agenda?See More
Wednesday at 9:14am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Commentor3 thanks for replying. Few questions here.

1) What would you feel would be the fate of an open aryans nations guy, applying for a faculty position at a govt university. I mean the guy may have bad views about non-white race, but that do...es not mean he would be not doing his work fairly. Would he get the job. And if not, would you cry foul about messing up of the freedom of expression idiom.

2) What about the freedom of a racist guy to go to a black area and yell foul things against african americans. Most probably he would get shot. Would you call african americans uncivilized.

3) How about some guy saying something profane to your wife in front of you. Would you plainly just refrain from physical violence at any cost. I mean do you still hold up to your standard of protecting the right of the guy making up some fantasy about your loved one and expressing it in front of you and your loved one.

4) Why doesn't anyone critisize austria's law that imprisons anyone who denies the holocaust as impeding free speech.




http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=6LP_0C50CAc

5) Would you say that the descision of glaad to pressurize WWE to stop the usage of homophobic taunts as an attempt to curtail the expression of free speech. Sure the people of glaad didn't use physical intimidation to get their point across. But the point of the matter is that expression of speech was stopped.

6) In such a case, Mr Khomeini plainly expressed himself by saying that rushdie should be killed and its the duty of every muslim to kill Mr Rushdie. Does he not have the right to express his opinion, however foul his opinion may be. If the claim is that such a statement could cause someone to actaully kill Mr Rushdie, Mr Khomeini shouldn't be blamed for it, because the guy pulling the trigger is finally a guy who is responsible for his own actions. Isn't this a founding assumption in any civilized society, that every individual is responsible for his own actions. Else prosecute marilyn manson for the columbine shootings.

In all these instances above, the issue that is put forward in front of a civil society is the one of 'intent'. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and even in a civilized society, there are set boundaries that curtail such a freedom, whether the existence of such boundaries is openly accepted or not.

PS In some sense the argument is also about physical vs emotional trauma. Else, verbal bullying in schools could also be overriden by a freedom of speech idiom.See More
Wednesday at 2:56pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Commentor2, what have dalits got to do with anything in this whole argument. Someone writes stories against my wife deserves my physical ire if possible. I bet Commentor3 would do the same thing. Or for that matter most of the people who makes up ...the civilized societies. In this regard you are a micro-micro-micro minority even in a civilized society like america. As I said before the issue is of intent. Freedom of speech is implicity or explicity judged in any society civilized or not, by the intent of the speech. The way I see it, the issue is between Rushdie and the Muslims. Rushdie felt the muslims deserved to be mocked, and Muslims felt that Rushdie should be killed.
An intention to hurt emotionally was followed by an intention to hurt physically.
Also Commentor2 you are not at the level of exposure of Rushdie in your beratings against muslims. I mean, you even have a private facebook account.

Also, I look at situations through a case by case basis. There are no universal truths, even in academic philosophy. And as I have said before, the freedom of speech dictum is itself an oxymoron.See More
Wednesday at 3:05pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik BTW Commentor2, put up a video of jesus doing sexual things in a christian neihbourhood in goa and see if your physical well being is protected.
Wednesday at 3:27pm · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter2
Well, you could certainly beat the person who writes fantasizing about your loved ones. But in this country, the criminal charges would be put up against you and not the other person. The best you should do would be consult a lawyer and sue... that person for libel if it bothers you too much. That is how the stuff is usually taken care of in a advanced society.

Also Khomeini was not just expressing his opinions, he was giving an order and hence would have been equally responsible, if Rushdie had been killed as a consequence of it, and not just the actor alone.

And what I write for my amusement on my private facebook account, if someone takes that and spreads it all across the world. Who should die me or the one doing the spreading or like in Satanic Affair both. Viking-Penguin paid $850,000 for the rights for what Rushdie wrote.

And the Britishers protects these people, instead of honorably handing them over to Iran. So, what happens to UK as a consequence of this is what they deserve in your opinion. And the twin towers episode is what US deserved for messing on Islamic lands. Come on if you love and respect dead guys from millenniums ago, convert and kill a few infidels.

Free speech is not an oxymoron, it is just the next step of freedom of thought which certainly no one can deny to anyone. Free speech is about expressing that free thought, either verbally or on paper. It is a different matter that all political and social systems will try to restrain free speech to different extents.

You merely hate free speech cos it has the power to destroy the moral fabric that you are so much in love with. But the some people love creationism and the text preaching about evolution and an old earth could be extremely emotionally distressing to them, so those should be banned as well.

The people should have the choice to write what they want and other should have the choice to read what they wish. That is what is free speech is about. Whether one should be allowed to dance naked on the streets etc. are matter of different debate.

And the issues which you keep bringing up against free speech are about freedom of unrestrained expression of speech, and that is somewhat outside the domain of merely free speech.

And emotional hurting should not be permitted to be reciprocated with physical hurting. At least not in a civilized society. At the most you can get a monetary compensation, if you have a good lawyer. If you think otherwise, you are in the wrong place, you would be better off living in more primitive societies.See More
Wednesday at 4:32pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
What do you mean by unrestrained expression of speech. Who decides what is unrestrained??? No one talks about restrained or unrestrained speech, when it comes to free speech. The supposed laws that protect free speech, dont come up with cla...uses that seperate restrained and unrestrained ways of speech. One persons restrained free speech may be considered unrestrained by someone else. These are just relative terms.

"....The best you should do would be consult a lawyer and sue... that person for libel if it bothers you too much. That is how the stuff is usually taken care of in a advanced society....." no suing of any sort should be allowed, if freedom of speech (restrained or unrestrained) is a law in any society.

Free speech being an oxymoron is mentioned in my writeup above, to point to the fact that as you pointed out "
all political and social systems will try to restrain free speech to different extents." That is why its an oxymoron, as there is no speech without restraint and hence there is not really speech that is 'free'.

You or so called defeneders of free speech only support free speech as long as it is line with critizizing what you abhor. Rest everything else is restrained, in the name of political correctness etc. Atleast I am being honest saying that free speech is an oxymoron and pointing out that the boundaries of speech are always set with the spice of intent, whether such practiclies are acknowledged openly or not.See More
Wednesday at 4:43pm · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter2
So, you think that Salman Rushdie should have been handed over to the Muslims so that he could have been suitably killed for writing a story is just ridiculous. Rushdie did not force the Muslims to read his story or had the most insulting e...xcepts posted on billboard in Muslim neighborhood. The issue is not whether what will happen to someone who will display a movie in public of Jesus doing explicit stuff in Goa. But if someone who has produced such a movie, should the person be killed for his work of art. By unrestrained I mean forced on to someone without their consent.

You could say free speech is utopian, but not oxymoron. But the society can strive towards it, even if it will never achieve it completely. Just because you can never really have perfect freedom of speech doesn't mean that you should give up the whole idea and suck to the sensitivities of moronic people.

I personally talk of free speech without bounds. Anyone should be free to say whatever he or she likes. And if free speech has to be restricted, in my opinion the most offensive books are religious texts and should be banned.See More
Wednesday at 5:12pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
The issue is not about your beliefs. The issue is about practicalities. The issue is also about one society calling other uncivilized by standing on a foundation that is iself very shaky, with free speech being an oxymoron as far as practic...al implementations go in the west.

The issue is also about allowing or advertizing certain forms of speech, while labeling other forms of speech as being heretic and making proactive efforts to hinder its propogation. Political correctness being a prime example in this direction.

The issue is also about standing on a deformed pedestal of the free speech idiom mainly to attack traditional morality, where in reality the issue is with the promotion of agendas by a corporate media with vested interests.

The reason that free speech was even promoted as being quintessential for the development of a society was so that rational debates on the issues prevalent in the society could be fostered. It was in the interests of "responsible" social change towards a wholesome society, that the idiom of free speech was even put forward as a necessary foundation to any society. And that is why, such a right comes with responsibility. It is when likes of Rushdie write plainly to offend or some racist guy calling a black guy a nigger etc, that you see a classic example of the institution of free speech getting mocked, through an irresponsible direction which has no correlation to effect the functioning or affecting a more wholesome society in the first place.

A analogous example is the right to carry arms. It is when such a right is invoked as an excuse by convicted felons and drug dealers against any ban on them from carrying arms, that the whole debate behind the right to carry arms becomes a mockery.See More
Wednesday at 5:39pm · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter2 Why are you so afraid of extreme free speech? Rushdie and the like have to be protected, cos if he is killed then to appease the Muslims lot others have to be killed.
Wednesday at 6:31pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Yaar Commentor2, this debate is not just about me or you. The issue is a global one at large. Why is the west so worried about political correctness. Why is so worried about labeling blacks because of their anger over choice words. How about ...intellectually oriented banning of homophobic slurs etc etc

Rushdie's issue is not plainly about muslims. If it is about islam, talk against sharia, talk against plainly following the book, without devling in to its meaning, talk against superstitions. There are many issues against islam that are worthy of debate. The issue is that Rushdie went about deningrating sexually historical figures that muslims look up to as their mother and father. I put myself in their shoes and ask myself, how would I react if someone says something against my parents. The issue is not a religious one. It is an issue with decency and responsibility. As I have said above, khomeini persisting with the death fatwa even after an apology was in bad taste. But getting pissed off and threatening with physical assault is a human reaction, especially when we are looking at deningrating of wholesome human emotions of love, respect etc. Mocking people with alternative demonations of worship or beliefs by attacking even their universally accepted wholesome emotions, really points to deningrating their identity as human beings,( especially when similar deningration of human emotions in one's own backyard would be supressed ) is something that I or any human being shouldnt stand by.See More
Wednesday at 6:42pm · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter2 Well then you do justify the acts of ObL and the likes against the western world? And for me Rushdie is like my prophet and I believe that the book was revealed to him by the angel Salman and is the true word.
Wednesday at 6:59pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik OBL attacked innocents. Rushdie was in full knowledge of the impact of his mischief.
Wednesday at 8:32pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik lol!!! hope Commentor2 u r not claiming that rushdie was targetted for ur sins, like christians and jesus.
Wednesday at 8:34pm · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter2
I don't think that ObL did attack anyone. Maybe he just expressed his opinion that someone should fly commercial airplanes into US buildings. And probably ObL did deserve what he got, I mean if he is really responsible for 9/11. After all h...e did something that does deserve a lot of attention.

And Obama is responsible for murdering ObL and not the Navy Seal guy who shot him. ObL could have been captured alive, he was no threat to the attackers.

And hence I differ with your opinion that Rushdie did deserve what he got. Why should he get so much attention and importance for merely writing a novel?See More
Yesterday at 12:32am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Don't understand. OBL financed, trained al qaeda members who later went about doing what they did. OBL chose and sent specific people to fly the airplanes. Obama was the leader of the american military which trained navy seals, and the nav...y seals were ordered to kill OBL. Obama talked to his chief of army, who sent the command through required beurocratic steps to specific navy units.

Khomeini opinionated that muslims should kill rushdie. He didnt chose speicific assassins to kill rushdie. Else after 9/11 most americans wanted the head of bin laden. u cant just pin point a random american and say that he is responsible for the murder of OBL, because he had a similar opinion. Such a debate runs in to semantics.

Rushdie knew that because of his position in the literary world he would have faced whatever he faced. If muslims wanted to give him all the attention, its their wish, if it is their motivations that you questions. He just paid for his mischief.See More
Yesterday at 12:47am · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik I mean tommorow you would start blaming some killing on metallica, because of their album kill em all and I can keep going on and on...
Yesterday at 12:52am · LikeUnlike
+
Commenter2
The issue is not about who I blame or what I say about what should be done with those whom I blame. The point is that you justify physical violence against someone who hurts someone else emotionally. You love to behave like an animal. Khome...ini and Iran government had a bounty for Salman Rushdie's head.

Why you only want to suck to Muslims only. You are pretty fine with the Hindu Gods being mocked and Jesus taking the piss. Why do you have skewed standards is my point. Are Muslims super elite that their feeling are more important than the people of other faith.

You just need some flawed logic to keep driveling at a point which is just illogical and and absurd. And never answer anything that is asked to you. What should the British government have done with Rushdie? If British government harbors and protect a blasphemer against Islam, are they not doing mischief against Islam. And hence Islamic world should be justified in attacking Britain for it, maybe not kill the civilians but kill their armies and prime minister. You are born in the wrong times, the world would have been a perfect place for you few centuries ago.

Why should Rushdie not have the right to express his story, which is just inspired from historical events and in no way he even claims it to be factual.

And did you mean Rushdie deserved the limelight. Or you would have been happier if he also fell victim to your beloved Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/The_Satanic_Verses_cont​roversy

In 1989, a man using the alias Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh, accidently blew himself up along with two floors of a central London hotel while preparing a bomb intended to kill Rushdie.[26]

In the mean time there were several attacks on those involved in the publishing of the book and who "were aware" of its "contents." Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of the book The Satanic Verses, was stabbed to death on July 11, 1991. Two other translators of the book survived attempted assassinations.[27] Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month as his Japanese counterpart. Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the intended target in the events that led to the Sivas massacre in July 1993, which resulted in the deaths of 37 people. William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, barely survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993.See More
Yesterday at 12:40pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
‎"The point is that you justify physical violence against someone who hurts someone else emotionally. You love to behave like an animal."

That is just human. I mean, you are making it seem that emotional violence is irrelevant and physical v...iolence is everything. If that was the case then a rape should be prosecuted very less compared to someone breaking some else's nose. I mean rape is a felony which the other crime is a misdeamor. In rape there is hardly any physical injury. But the reason rape is prosecuted as a felony is because of the emotional trauma for the victim.

I am ok with everything. The only issue is whether I support when people revolt. Here the muslims revolted and I supported that. Tommorow if goans revolt against some book getting published about jesus, I would support that too. My positions are not contradictory here.

The issue with what the british government would have done is a political question. The issue I am addressing here, is whether the muslims are wrong or is the british position right. I just argued that there is no perfect way of looking at things. Freedom of speech is an oxymoron if looked from a pratical perspective. If british government wants to save Mr Rushdie, that is their govt policy. However, as I said the issue becomes politicial and no muslim country wanted to waste money and security over a book. They just wanted to send a message, which was more cheaper.

As I said, Rushdie may have his rights, but his rights come with responsibilities. The other way of framing the debate is why don't the islamists have a right to get pissed of and threaten with physical consequences, just as Commentor3 or any other american would threaten someone with physical consequences if one of his own loved one was mocked in a sexual way.

Talking about the publishers, if they knew the content and they knew what would have happened, then isnt it fair to assume that they shouldnt have published anything to save themselves of the consequences involved. Talking about the hotel that was bombed, the blame should be on rushdie. His big ego to mock and malign emotional attachnments of a group of people has not only put his own life in danger, but also put the lives of others in danger. That shows how irresponsible he really was. If he didnt know about the consequences of publishing the book atleast he could be excused. But if he did nkow bout the consequences and furthered the damage to others physically because of his actions, that shows him to be far more guilty.See More
Yesterday at 3:54pm · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Commentor2 now I can't be pissed at muslims because they choose not to celebrate their love for muhammad with songs as such, just as I can't blame you for being pissed at them for the same reason

http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=nCcU2xfvz0o&feature=r​elated
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor2 Okay. You and the muslims who want Rushdie dead are just unfit for modern times. The world used to be like that but now such actions are no longer considered civil behavior. BTW threathening someone and actually carrying out the threats are different things.
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Yaar its just a perception. How about the american government invading countries, without even talking about an exit strategy. Only one rushdie's life is in trouble with khomeini, while thousands have been killed for weapons of mass destr...uction which never existed, or the boundaries of a nation such as afghanisthan were invaded, without giving proof to the country about the exact involvment of OBL in the 9/11 bombings. I bet such administration is very fit for ruling in the modern enlightened times.

Or the austrian govt arresting someone who questions the validity of the holocaust. Or the black people who would beat up a non black for using the word nigger. Or how about the american media for removing michael savage from the airways for calling someone a sodomite
http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=IAA2KxgqVvk

Its a double standard with muslims or any other religion is what I see here.See More
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor2 Also Rushdie and the publishers didn't even commit emotional violence. They just published a book. If the muslims don't like it don't read it. Why kill anyone who loves such stuff.
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik As I said, if someone writes a book saying something bad about a american guys wife, you wouldnt make an argument saying that the guy shouldn't read the book as a solution. The guy would be pissed off because the comments made against his wife were done in a public medium. The issue is that the insult in the Rushdie case was one such public phenomena.
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Political_positions_of_​Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech

Even Senator paul believes in restrictions to freedom of expression!!!
22 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor2
Waspy, your argument holds no water. You are saying that if someone writes something lewd about an American man's wife in a public medium then that man should have the right to beat up that person. That is simple no going to happen, no matt...er how much you wish to support it. You are living in the wrong place and wrong times. You can't do much about the time, but at least move to some less advanced place where your ideas would probably get better foothold.

And in Rushdie's case he never claimed that he is talking about anyone wife. He just wrote a story and was describing the dreams of a person with disturbed mind. Moronic people just get worked up even without reading the stuff and claim he said bad things about prophet's wife. And you need such clown to run a religion. Why don't you bother to read it, before joining the bands of moronic people and going apeshit over it? Though I didn't like it much, you might find it interesting. It has Amitabh Bacchan in it too.

http://www.angelfire.com/r​ebellion2/fr33minds/Salman​Rushdie_satanic_verses.pdf

And if the novel was meant to be tasteless and insulting, then why would it go to be the Booker Prize Finalist.

Rushdie didn't write the book in Iran, he wrote it where he had the freedom to write it. If Muslims cannot co-exist with the people of advanced world, they better go to one of the Islamic countries and live there. And you too can join them there.

As about senator Paul the article says that he has always been pro-religion, so it is not wonder if tends to be anti-freedom.See More
21 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Just to clarify, whatever the rules behind a man beating someone up for someone saying shit about his wife, does not prevent the american society from accepting and even supporting the actions of a guy who did resort to beating someone to protect the honor of his wife. Why do you think american respect icons such as john wayne so much :)
21 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Well you have a point. Let me read the novel. I made my views after seeing the documentary and rushdie does seem to agree with his advertized intent of purposely insulting the prophes wives.
21 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
But also am curious as to why rushdie, or the publishers of the novel didn't try to explain their point of view about asking muslims to read the novel to even realize that the intent was not to mock islam etc. I mean even the representative...s of the british govt in the documentary claim that they don't agree with what rushdie has written but he has the right to offend as per the freedom of speech dictum. What message does that send to the world, that possibly the book was written from the viewpoint of being offensive (that is why the british govt does not agree with its views etc).See More
21 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor2 I told you wild wild west days are gone, move out of this land. The American man can sue and take refuge of the laws. But if he takes to the law into his own hands, he better be ready to face the heat.
21 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor2 Just because you cannot explain things to moronic people. British government has to make diplomatic and politically correct statements.
21 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Whatever the laws say, does not mean that they have popular support. Just that instances of someone saying something shit to someones wife is not such a common occurence that there would be a movement against changing laws in that regard. W...ild west days may be over, but then its defining of american cultural identiy is definetly not over. Also the mystique of john wayne is definetly not over, with him being considered an american cultural icon by the presidential office. Now, he may not mean much to feminized hyperliberal american males from the upper middle classes, that however does not discount his importance in defining an american identity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/John_Wayne#Legacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/John_Wayne#American_ico​nSee More
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Just because you cannot explain things to moronic people. British government has to make diplomatic and politically correct statements

The viewpoint is so inherently contradictory. What is politically correct about their statements. They we...re just burping around the fact that they were all cool with Rushdie bashing the muslims and muslims deserved to be bashed. It is just political sweet talk. Like the Godfather comment" Will make him an offer he wouldnt refuse".
If the british government actually felt that the muslims cannot be debated with logic, they would not have diplomatic communications with the arab world. They wouldn't have buisness dealings with involve logic towards setting prices of oil etc with the muslims. So does your statement above really show the hypocrisy of the british government, that can somehow find the muslims all good to talk and debate when it comes to issues realted to money, but caricatures them when no monetary issues are involved.See More
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Look at one of the topmost television news media program in america honoring john wayne as a cultural icon

http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=PD1Dhx0Zx_c
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik BTW Commentor2, a lot of the issue was about politics. East vs West and all that bullshit. If Iran was a british ally, in some fight against Russia during the cold war etc, let us see whether Rushdie's work would be published in Britain. The issue was hardly about freedom of speech. Rushdie was just a pawn in the whole game.
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor2
Yes, I know you Michael Savage has a large following, but they have no real power so keep crying babies. And laws are meant to protect weaker people only. Otherwise with your physical built and mental mindset, you will be fine with might is... right.

Well, Rushdie and publishers didn't explain anything because they felt one cannot explain things to morons and any such attempt will be just counter productive. The Britishers did break diplomatic relations with Iran. And yes money and economics are important. Also British government has to protects its citizens from terrorist attacks and alos appease its own Muslim population. And hence cannot openly support such works.See More
20 hours ago · UnlikeLike · 1 personLoading...
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Dude, Michael savage is the second highest rated talk show host in america (after another conservative guy). They are the one's who get the republicans in power for all the silly policies. Come no. Also the laws are not meant to protect phy...sically weak people against physically strong people, so that the physically weak can go about abusing a physically strong person and get away with it. That is really a shady way of insulting the noble intent of the founding fathers of america. The american founding fathers just as founding fathers of most modern nations, always spoke of rights coming with serious responsibilities. As john wayne beautifully says it here.

"I wont be wronged, I wont be insulted, I wont be laid a hand on. I dont do these things to other people and I require the same from them..." Every honorable american would go physical if need be to uphold what the duke said and what they imbibe within themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=7JUfOIglaSc&playnext=​1&list=PL7480087967586619See More
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=4e7zeuXIcio

It is not an islamic issue, but a political one!!!
18 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Politics my friend!!!

http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=rTZf9ot78kI
17 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Commentor3
Okay guys . Fascinating discussion. VW you either are goading or fishing or both. If you truly believe you can beat the fuck outa someone for talking trash, the handcuffs might be your preferred jewelry.You mention examples of people behavi...ng badly ( would argue not in a manner fit for one's own survival)ostensibly for benefit of grousing about their own soul pain etc,,,,Aryans, homophobes etc are merely crying out loud that they are dissatisfied with things they cannot control. Such a rage is acceptable as long as they keep their ideas in the realm of thought and not action. When one wishes thier ideas or cause to be lorded over those they disagree with they can turn to violence. They may say for example: "I do not like your book (waaaaah waaaah waaah, sniff.sniff) now I am going to kill you for writing it. You have hurt me sooooo very deeply, that of course you must die." A sentiment that condones violence towards vendetta is childish and unenlightened. Yeah Americans grow up with John Wayne sentimentality born of the wild west when scofflaws routinely hurt decent people and required routing by our legendary Marshalls both real and fictional. But more enlightened Americans believe that justice will prevail and do not seek to be vigilantes.Two key books in my own upbringing were the Oxbow incident (regarding vigilantiism) and 12 Angry Men(regarding emotion vice rationality in jurisprudence). These books take the rough edges off the might makes right tough guy BS we are fed in the movies. So no I think it is fool hardy to bring violence against someone who I disagree with. I have a simple rule: treat others as you wish to be treated. I do understand that there are hateful hurtful people who share this earth with me. I own my own reactions to this world and am wise enough to know what I cannot control. Asswipe crybabies who kill anyone associated with creating blasphemous art need to be brought to justice. That nation states headed by wild men espousing love of god but acting like children(waaaah I don't like your book, clothes, art, ideas...)send assassins very decidedly assures that this IS about politics. When Europeans ran Saracens and their lot from Europe on more than one occaission it was probably about getting tired of the control and influence exerted by these folks.(politics yes) I agree that if heathens cannot co exist with civilized people they should be run off to live in the mountains or backwaters/deserts of the world. The problem is, they keep coming back trying to blow shit up, like perfect crybabies.See More
14 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Commentor3 u didnt seem to read my comments. I post them once again. I was not justifying what homophobes etc do, please read my comments. You are giving me examples from books. I am talking about the viewpoints of a nation. A nation that idoli...zes the great john waynes style of

"1) What would you feel would be the fate of an open aryans nations guy, applying for a faculty position at a govt university. I mean the guy may have bad views about non-white race, but that does not mean he would be not doing his work fairly. Would he get the job. And if not, would you cry foul about messing up of the freedom of expression idiom.

2) What about the freedom of a racist guy to go to a black area and yell foul things against african americans. Most probably he would get shot. Would you call african americans uncivilized.

3) How about some guy saying something profane to your wife in front of you. Would you plainly just refrain from physical violence at any cost. I mean do you still hold up to your standard of protecting the right of the guy making up some fantasy about your loved one and expressing it in front of you and your loved one.

4) Why doesn't anyone critisize austria's law that imprisons anyone who denies the holocaust as impeding free speech.

http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=6LP_0C50CAc

5) Would you say that the descision of glaad to pressurize WWE to stop the usage of homophobic taunts as an attempt to curtail the expression of free speech. Sure the people of glaad didn't use physical intimidation to get their point across. But the point of the matter is that expression of speech was stopped.

6) In such a case, Mr Khomeini plainly expressed himself by saying that rushdie should be killed and its the duty of every muslim to kill Mr Rushdie. Does he not have the right to express his opinion, however foul his opinion may be. If the claim is that such a statement could cause someone to actaully kill Mr Rushdie, Mr Khomeini shouldn't be blamed for it, because the guy pulling the trigger is finally a guy who is responsible for his own actions. Isn't this a founding assumption in any civilized society, that every individual is responsible for his own actions. Else prosecute marilyn manson for the columbine shootings.

In all these instances above, the issue that is put forward in front of a civil society is the one of 'intent'. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and even in a civilized society, there are set boundaries that curtail such a freedom, whether the existence of such boundaries is openly accepted or not.

PS In some sense the argument is also about physical vs emotional trauma. Else, verbal bullying in schools could also be overriden by a freedom of speech idiom."See More
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
You are giving me examples from books. I am talking about the viewpoints of a nation. A nation that idolizes the great john waynes style of physical violence for emotional violence. As I have been saying an average american would beat the s...hit out of any guy who abuses his wife using verbal sexual slang. May be the guy will be arrested, but the society would symphatize with the guy.
I was just pointing out the similar desire to physically harm a guy by a community that feels that one of their own family members has been physically abused.See More
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Also you are just repeating the same thing that you said in your previous post. You are completely stereotyping the muslims/religionists with comments " en(waaaah I don't like your book, clothes, art, ideas...)". That is just not true. Th...ere have been critical works written against muhammad taking positions against his taking of a child bride etc, which have been debated by the muslims. The rushdie book amounted to plain mockery.
Also you are just bullshitting if you actually are claiming that some dude makes vitriolic sexual comments against your loved one in front of your face (may be he will justify it as his definition of art) and you will restraint yourself physically.See More
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Flag_Desecration_Amendm​ent

Commentor3 even americans have their qualms about freedom of speech!!!
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik The enlightened societies of western europe also talk about restrictions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Freedom_of_speech_by_co​untry#European_Convention_​on_Human_Rights
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Arrest the Germans too Commentor3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Freedom_of_speech_by_co​untry#Germany
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik
Wait a sec, no need to fly to germany or the european union, arrest the canadians instead Commentor3, I mean Rushdie acted on
purpose to offend and not at all in good faith. He would be guilty by points b,c,d below....

" Under section 319, an acc...used is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Can​adaSee More
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike
+
Vaibhav Wasnik Wait a sec Commentor3 we have problems in america itself regarding this issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Hate_speech#United_Stat​es

"reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey"

"intolerable", "socially unecessary" whoooaaaa, does that ring a bell Mr Rushie....
7 minutes ago · LikeUnlike