Occasionally Salman Rushdie says some very sensible things, and here is one occasion of that: he challenges the egregious George Galloway, who would forbid criticism of Islam and honest discussion of the roots of Islamic terror. "Rushdie dismisses Galloway's claims," from The Guardian, with thanks to Danielle:
Salman Rushdie clashed with George Galloway yesterday in a debate about TV and religion and a hypothetical small-screen adaptation of the novelist's controversial book The Satanic Verses. Mr Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, said TV executives had to be "very sensitive about people's religion" and if broadcasters did not show sufficient sensitivity they "had to deal with the consequences".He said: "You have to be aware if you do [offend people's beliefs] you will get blowback. You should do it very carefully, especially if you are a public service broadcaster."
"Is that a threat?" asked Rushdie during the debate at the Media Guardian Edinburgh international television festival.
Describing Mr Galloway's argument as "craven", the author said: "The simple fact is that any system of ideas that decides you have to ringfence it, that you cannot discuss it in fundamental terms, that you can't say that this bit of it is junk, or that bit is oppressive ... we are supposed to respect that?"...
He claimed that Islam was "backsliding into bigotry" and described Muslim leaders in Britain as "a joke, because no one follows them".
"He [Rushdie] claimed that Islam was "backsliding into bigotry" and described Muslim leaders in Britain as "a joke, because no one follows them".
-- from the article above
Again, not close, and no cigar. So however useful he may be in some ways, he cannot bring himself to admit -- he may not even know, for being "born a Muslim" does not make one an expert on the tenets and attitudes that Islam inculcates (especially if one is raised in a non-observant household, in a non-Muslim milieu), nor does one know of the history of Islamic conquest and treatement of subjugated non-Muslims.
So here is Salman Rushdie, a little like Christopher Hitchens -- not nearly as bad as those who were once their fellows, but in the case of both, ill-informed about Islam.
Islam is not "backsliding into bigotry." It is itself; it does not change; the canonical texts of Qur'an, Hadith, and the biography or Sira do not change. What changes is the force with which such these tenets are inculcated, the ability to take them to every illiterate in every village (through the wonders of Infidel technolgy), to preach them throughout the Infidel world (through the wonder of Infidels having let so many Muslims behind Infidel lines, without properly investigating what Islam was all about, and just how easy, or impossible, it might prove to remove from the minds of those Muslim migrants who are only in the geographic sense now part of the Infidel countries in which they have been allowed to settle).
The only thing that changed in the last two centuries, within Islam, was the appearance of superior Western powers, who used their power to force the Ottoman rulers to begin to treat their non-Muslim subjects better. The Ottomans resisted constantly; the Tanzimat reforms of 1839 were in fact not fully implemented, and again and again the Western powers found they had to extract the same promises from the Ottoman rulers. And during this same time, of course, there were massacres upon massacres of non-Muslims -- of Maronites, of Assyrians, and most notably, of Armenians in 1894-1896 and then again in 1915-1920.
Rushdie's own immediate experience of Islam and Islamic-dominated societies is limited. Possibly he assumes that the behavior of Muslims when they lacked the wherewithal that OPEC money, migration to the West, and technological means (audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, the Internet) to spread Islamic teachings and regulations -- the oleaginous taqiyya-laced behavior that caused generations of British officials in the Middle East to describe the Muslim Arabs as "at your feet or at your throat."
As far as the Muslim leaders in Britain being a "joke" -- what does this mean? That they do not represent real Islam, or that they do? Here is a question that one must pose to Rushdie, who turns out, upon inspection, not to be quite the full truth-teller about Islam that one would wish.
Again -- if you want the truth, go to Ibn Warraq. Go to Ali Sina. Go to the many others who appear at www.faithfreedom.org. Accept no substitutes, and do not fall for the shallow machiavellianism that identifies as "moderate Muslism" those who are in fact not Muslims at all, but merely "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims. The rest will continie to engage in apologetics, sleight of word, and so on, out of an inability to look at Islam steadily and whole.
We are not after all asking that Rushdie know all about the Hafs and Warsh readings of the Qur'an. We are not insisting that he have memorized thousands of verses, or know exaclty what Muhammad said when he learned of the death of Asma bint Muhammad, or what toys little Aisha was playing with when summoned to Muhammad's side. All we ask is that he know that Islam divides the world between Believer and Infidel, and insists that Islam must spread until Islam dominates everywhere, and Infidels, those who are allowed to live, and not forced to convert, must submit to the permanent status of dhimmi. And all the disabilities that dhimmis must endure should at least be known -- to Rushdie, and to anyone else who presumes to speak about Islam.
As for the Samarkand Qur'an and suchlike -- we can leave that kind of thing to Ibn Warraq. We don't really expect that much of Rushdie -- only the necessary minimum.
Rushdie disappoints, since, after being forced into hiding and having been chased around the world for a decade under death threats of Islamic Imperialist maniacs, you would think he had educated himself, while in those many safe houses, a little more about the depth and history of the threat.
At least enough to word his arguments more forcefully, cogently and convincingly.
All he needs to do is to challenge the opening line of the Koran:
"THIS BOOK IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED."
-and ask:
"Is this pre-ordained obeisance to one man's words acceptable to anyone but an intellectual coward, a dogmatic slave or a flesh-based robot?"
Or does he still believe it, kind of, himself?
(With the necessary humanistic "amendments", of course, ... the ones that can never come, because of the "unalterable", unreformable wording of the Koran, as such.)
And can't make the break?
Well, either Koran or get off the pot, Salman.
To see how extensive the dhimmi mentality is, I would invite jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch readers to look at this thread in a philosophy discussion forum called "Examined Life".
The thread is called "Islam: does it generate violence?"
At least 20 intelligent and well-educated non-Muslims have contributed, and only two of us have defended the principle of criticizing Islam -- all the others have found elaborate ways of defending Islam. And my fellow critic of Islam I noticed recently used the phrase "the newly violent Islam", implying that Islam has not always been violent (!).
http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/
(to get to the Islam thread, click on "Last Day" from the Discussion tree located on the left)
If you have the patience to read through this very long thread, ask yourself why all these intelligent, well-educated non-Muslims are doing so many gymnastics in order to defend Islam from criticism? It baffles and enrages me.
P.S.: There is absolutely no reason why a man as intelligent and educated and enyclopedic as Salman Rushdie should be so remiss about the facts of Islam as Hugh has adumbrated. We must follow Sherlock Holmes' advice: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." It is impossible that Salman Rushdie, given his intelligence, education and encyclopaideia, would be ignorant of these facts about Islam. Therefore, it is not mainly Rushdie's fault: it is the fault of the culture around him that has, somehow, so effectively submerged those facts that even an anthropological deep-sea diver as Salman will come up empty on key matters.
Dhimmi mentality? Surely Galloway is sounding more and more like a jihadi or a jihadi supporter each passing day. There are two possibilities, either he views islam as a vehicle to destroy western supremacy, full filling his demented left-wing philosophy or he has now has become a muslim himself. There is a huge difference between his last statements and those of an apologist or accommodationist (cf Cat Stevens - Rushdie affair)
Many media personalities fear the muslim backlash if they offend (Krishnan Guru-Murthy of C4, openly admitted to the climate of fear) islam. Think of the risks, Salman or whoever says that islam is evil, backward and unreformable, muslims would react. This new affair would be blamed and held up as an example of why muslims feel 'rage'. The left would have a field day, and the jihadis would have more blood on their hands. Rushdie knows what islam is his book Satanic verses is actually very prophetic in some ways.
The only solution to this problem is to either adopt a policy of deislamification in our state schools, where all pupils learn about the intellectual (and moral) idiocy of islam, this may blunt the next generation.
As far as I am concerned talk of Benes decrees and the rest is no different to discussing war, the muslims will not go quietly and it will lead to war. How are we going to implement mass deportations? History has shown fighting jihad has led to more jihad, even if Rushdie states the truth, so what? When more public figures do this and the ummah realises that there is no future for islam they will set a chain of events that will lead to precisely what the gov. fears - open tension and violence. Or perhaps that is a definition of dhimmitude following the path of least resistance. Either way if I was an American, I wouldn't wish to be an European right now.
JV
While Mr Rushdie has made some undoubtedly sober and clear-eyed remarks, he still lacks an appropriate insight into the issue of Islamic extremism. By claiming that Islam is "backsliding into bigotry" and saying that Muslim leaders in Britain are "a joke, because no one follows them", Rushdie makes two grave mistakes, one for each statement.
Contrary to his words, Islam is not backsliding into bigotry. It has ALWAYS been full of bigotry, perhaps only with an exception of its Golden Age. Mohammad conquest's were motivated by his own unmatched bigotry, intolerance of other faiths and fanatical adherence to the idea of converting every living soul to the 'religion of truth'. Unsurpsingly, today, when urges for returning to the roots of Islam are being heard with an increasing frequency, this divinely inspired bigotry is reborn, which is the only part of the bigger picture that Mr Rushdie actually notices.
Secondly, in his phrase about the British Muslim leaders, he clearly implies that they are essentially moderate and the only reason why Britain has so many extremists swarming all over its cities is because mainstream Muslims fail to listen to them. Nothing could farther from the truth. MCB's leader Iqbal Sacranie is a very well-known anti-Semite, who have been spotted many a times expressing sympathy for the Muslim terrorists, particularly by attending the memorial service for the arch-terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who has hundreds of corpses on his conscience — if he has any. Above all, almost all of the so-called moderate Muslim leaders of Britain, have put their signatures under the pro-terrorist statement, pledging their support to Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has just reaffirmed their goal of establishing the Caliphate in the Muslim World and the infidel lands.
After the two most obvious fallacies of Rushdie's speech have been demonstrated, one conclusion inexorably surfaces: if the likes of Salman Rushdie are being regarded as one of the most relentless critics of Islam and even their words are considered to be bigoted by the MSM, we can expect little progress in raising awareness about the Islamist threat among the general public.
-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org
Rushdie is probably mincing his words as he doesn't want another Fatwa descending on his head, after having been in hiding for a good ten years. Most of us, after all, can post under psuedonyms on the internet but maybe we might be more wary about showing our faces in public in case we meet the same fate as Theo van Gogh. It's an indication of the dark forces of fascism at the heart of Europe that our free speech is being curtailed like this, whereas the Islamists can say anything they like.
Hi Londongirl,
Yep, you are probably right, but the Iranian Fatwa against Rushdie stands - as the only person who could remove it is now with Allah - or wormfood, depnding on your viewpoint.
As for saying what we want in public - F___ em, I say what I feel & know to be right at every public & private opportunity.
I cannot see Galloway as anything other than a dedicated Muslim - he may not be using his new name with the obligatory "Mohammed / Muhammed" prefix, but I am convinced he is a willing convert.
Surely his loyal Bow & Bethnal Green electorate would accept nothing less?
I'd love to do the same but I wouldn't last long in my job before a jihad was declared against me. The PC stuff has gotten so bad in the UK.
Here's just one example of what's going on. I went to sign up for a course at my local college that does adult evening classes and found many of them have been cut. They're running short of funds because so much provision has been made for free English classes for asylum seekers, most of whom of course are escaping from the execrable dictatorships installed by Islamist jihadists such as Somalia. The brochure had photos on every page of women in headscarves. Is that supposed to make us feel better or what?