Rushdie knighted in honours list

[Space-Cowboy]

Salman Rushdie, who went into hiding under threat of death after an Iranian fatwa, has been knighted by the Queen.
His book The Satanic Verses offended Muslims worldwide and a bounty was placed on his head in 1989.

But since the Indian-born author return to public life in 1999, he has not shied away from controversy.

A devout secularist, he backed Commons Leader Jack Straw over comments on Muslim women and veils and has warned against Islamic "totalitarianism".

The son of a successful businessman, Sir Salman was born into a Muslim family in Mumbai in 1947.

He was educated in England at Rugby School and studied history at Cambridge University.

Booker prize

Following an advertising career in London, he became a full-time writer.

His first novel, Grimus, was published in 1975 but was generally ignored by the book-buying public and literary establishment.

But his second effort - the magic realist novel Midnight's Children - catapulted him to literary fame.

It won the Booker Prize in 1981 and was awarded the Booker of Bookers in 1993 after being judged the best novel to have won the prize during its 25-year history.

Sir Salman, who turns 60 on 19 June, is renowned as a martyr for free speech and purveyor of story as political statement.

Death sentence

He takes history and fictionalises it, with imaginative brilliance, and much of his work is set in his native India and Pakistan.

His fourth book - The Satanic Verses in 1988 - describes a cosmic battle between good and evil and combines fantasy, philosophy and farce.

It was immediately condemned by the Islamic world because of its perceived blasphemous depiction of the prophet Muhammad.

It was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities and in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's spiritual leader, issued a fatwa, ordering Sir Salman's execution. It was not formally lifted until 1998.

Despite living as a virtual prisoner, with full police protection, Sir Salman continued to write and produced several novels and essays during his confinement.

His re-emergence has not been without controversy.

In backing Jack Straw over his comments on Muslim women wearing veils, Sir Salman said veils "suck" as they were a symbol of the "limitation of women".

He also weighed into the furore surrounding the Danish cartoons, which satirised the Prophet Muhammad, warning against Islamic "totalitarianism".

Of his knighthood for services to literature, Rushdie said: "I am thrilled and humbled to receive this great honour, and am very grateful that my work has been recognised in this way."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6756149.stm



:-s

[sWeEtnDsOuR]

desi knight...



baller :dance3:

[Space-Cowboy]

desi knight...



baller :dance3:


His ethnicity is Persian isn't it despite being Indian born?

[jumpn jza]

wow...i really respect this guy heaps, but if i was him i would have told the queen to shove the knighthood up her ass and that i dont need her approval...that would be cool...

Other than that i respect guys that stir up intellectual controversy, its actually quite funny when retarded camel fuckers like Ayatollah Khomeni put a fatwa on him coz it gives credence to the cause of free speech...

LONG LIVE SALMAN RUSHDIE :cheers:

however i dont agree with his stance on the hijab...

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

why am i not surprised?.Ofcourse they will knight a guy who speaks hatred against muslims,twists quranic verses for his own purposes,licks the ass of the western world and shows them how muslims r brutal creatures.Good luck with his B.S,he might get many awards in U.K but in the muslim world he is considered a stupid person with no knowledge however of islam

[Angelno15]

I read the book and to be perfectly honest I thought it was rubbish. I couldnt believe all that hype and the book turned out to be so bad.

[Angelno15]

why am i not surprised?.Ofcourse they will knight a guy who speaks hatred against muslims,twists quranic verses for his own purposes,licks the ass of the western world and shows them how muslims r brutal creatures.Good luck with his B.S,he might get many awards in U.K but in the muslim world he is considered a stupid person with no knowledge however of islam

edit

[addiction01]

I read a short story by him called "The Prophet's Hair", if I were Muslim I would probably be offended by it too.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

As for his statement abt that veils suck.Well heres news for that cunt 'veils' is encouraged by islam for modesty among women.So if he wants his daughters to dress like whores and nobody has a problem with it why does he have a problem with muslim women wearing the veil?

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

I thought it was a work of fiction? Isnt it always in the fiction part of the library?
In his book "Satanic verses".He quoted the verses of Quran and completely twisted them, gave them a new meaning and showed that these verses sppread hate and violence.I will call that B.S not fiction

[Angelno15]

In his book "Satanic verses".He quoted the verses of Quran and completely twisted them, gave them a new meaning and showed that these verses sppread hate and violence.I will call that B.S not fiction

I dont want to get into an argument about the Quran but I did agree with some of his interpretations. But the book wasnt well written. And 70% was fiction based.

Its kinda like the whole Da Vinci code. There was some aspects of The Da Vinci code that was true but it was a work of fiction.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

I dont want to get into an argument about the Quran but I did agree with some of his interpretations. But the book wasnt well written. And 70% was fiction based.

Its kinda like the whole Da Vinci code. There was some aspects of The Da Vinci code that was true but it was a work of fiction.

plz explain which intrepretations u found correct.If u dont know what quran says or dont have enoguh knowledge how can u claim that u agree with his interpretations?.As for Da Vinci code u do know it comes in the same category B.S as said by all christians around the world.Claiming that jesus has a daughter .The author i am sure didnt even read the bible to make such stupid assumptions

[jumpn jza]

As for his statement abt that veils suck.Well heres news for that cunt 'veils' is encouraged by islam for modesty among women.So if he wants his daughters to dress like whores and nobody has a problem with it why does he have a problem with muslim women wearing the veil?

just coz a woman wears revealing clothing doesnt make her a whore...in fact, i believe all people have the right to walk around naked...:D

And what makes a woman a "whore"?? - sleeping with many men and dressing provocatively?? - that doesnt make her a whore - it makes her "sexually confidant" - and i think Salman Rushdie would have no problem raising his daughters to be "sexually confident"...thats thats respectable

[jumpn jza]

why am i not surprised?.Ofcourse they will knight a guy who speaks hatred against muslims,twists quranic verses for his own purposes,licks the ass of the western world and shows them how muslims r brutal creatures.Good luck with his B.S,he might get many awards in U.K but in the muslim world he is considered a stupid person with no knowledge however of islam

So anyone who doesnt agree with you about islam has no knowledge about it ??

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

just coz a woman wears revealing clothing doesnt make her a whore...in fact, i believe all people have the right to walk around naked...:D

And what makes a woman a "whore"?? - sleeping with many men and dressing provocatively?? - that doesnt make her a whore - it makes her "sexually confidant" - and i think Salman Rushdie would have no problem raising his daughters to be "sexually confident"...thats thats respectable

So why does he have a problem with women who want to cover themselves.Its a freeworld everyone has the right to dress as they wish.His daughters can walk naked ours will cover themselves.Why does he have a problem with that?

[Angelno15]

plz explain which intrepretations u found correct.If u dont know what quran says or dont have enoguh knowledge how can u claim that u agree with his interpretations?.As for Da Vinci code u do know it comes in the same category B.S as said by all christians around the world.Claiming that jesus has a daughter .The author i am sure didnt even read the bible to make such stupid assumptions

like I said I dont want an argument but I have studies the Quran and I came to my own conclusions which most muslims do aswell when they read the Quran. Please dont assume Ive just walked into a thread and commented on a subject I know nothing about.

Also about The Da Vinci code I am a christian so I know what I think is true and what I think was false. I think The Da Vinci code was well rsearched but he twisted a lot of facts to suit the storyline of the book.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

So anyone who doesnt agree with you about islam has no knowledge about it ??

Anyone who doesnt understand the quran correctly and misinterprets it has no knowlledge of islam

[jumpn jza]

So why does he have a problem with women who want to cover themselves.Its a freeworld everyone has the right to dress as they wish.His daughters can walk naked ours will cover themselves.Why does he have a problem with that?

i disgree with him stating that "veils suck" but i also disagree with you branding those that dont cover up as being "whores"...your both bigoted

[Angelno15]

So why does he have a problem with women who want to cover themselves.Its a freeworld everyone has the right to dress as they wish.His daughters can walk naked ours will cover themselves.Why does he have a problem with that?

I think he has a problem with those who live in the UK and wear a veil. Such as that teacher who wore a veil or for security reasons such as women who go into banks wearing a veil. I dont find that acceptable either.

[jumpn jza]

Anyone who doesnt understand the quran correctly and misinterprets it has no knowlledge of islam

yes but different people will read a text and understand it differently...

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

like I said I dont want an argument but I have studies the Quran and I came to my own conclusions which most muslims do aswell when they read the Quran. Please dont assume Ive just walked into a thread and commented on a subject I know nothing about.

Also about The Da Vinci code I am a christian so I know what I think is true and what I think was false. I think The Da Vinci code was well rsearched but he twisted a lot of facts to suit the storyline of the book.

Unless u specify what u r talking abt I have no idea where u got the idea that he is correct or his interpretions r right.Listen Quran is interpreted by great islamic scholars of the past and present even they have a little bit of difference in interpretations.But this guy compleely changed the meaning of verse and thats what i am trying to tell u.If u still dont believe me read a version translated by Bukhari,Anees and thn compare what they said and what he said.Just dont use ur interpretation bcz since me and u are not that well qualified to understand some verses who hav e deep manings in them we might take the wrong meaning

[foreverconfused]

I think he has a problem with those who live in the UK and wear a veil. Such as that teacher who wore a veil or for security reasons such as women who go into banks wearing a veil. I dont find that acceptable either.

Is he objecting to the ones that cover their face? Obviously that could cause security problems due to difficulties in identification. If he is objecting to the use of the hijab, that's different.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

i disgree with him stating that "veils suck" but i also disagree with you branding those that dont cover up as being "whores"...your both bigoted

Ok i dont have a problem with ppl walking naked i take my comment back but that guy has an agenda to show muslims backward thats why i disagree with everything he has to say

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

I think he has a problem with those who live in the UK and wear a veil. Such as that teacher who wore a veil or for security reasons such as women who go into banks wearing a veil. I dont find that acceptable either.


Why?Nuns wear it too r they banned?.Second wearing a veil doesnt prohibit anyone from doing her duty

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

yes but different people will read a text and understand it differently...
Yeah so i will read a verse and say "Look i came up with this GOD has thirty wives and 70 billions children and they all will die today".Is that correct NO.

[jumpn jza]

Ok i dont have a problem with ppl walking naked i take my comment back but that guy has an agenda to show muslims backward thats why i disagree with everything he has to say

i think he wants people to see islam the way HE sees it, similar to how you'd want people to see islam the way YOU see it...

no biggie...

i think the guy is interesting though...

[Angelno15]

Why?Nuns wear it too r they banned?.Second wearing a veil doesnt prohibit anyone from doing her duty

I dont agree with him objecting to a muslim covering thier head but I agree that I do think wearing a veil prohibts a teacher from doing her job.

I hope this doesnt get into a veil argument.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

i think he wants people to see islam the way HE sees it, similar to how you'd want people to see islam the way YOU see it...

no biggie...

i think the guy is interesting though...

Well no offence but if u arent muslim u wont find him offensive bcz it doesnt concern u or doesnt change how ppl think abt u one bit.But since i am a muslim and he has said things in his book which r not true abt my religion and abt my fellow muslims so YES i amoffended by that guy

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

I dont agree with him objecting to a muslim covering thier head but I agree that I do think wearing a veil prohibts a teacher from doing her job.

I hope this doesnt get into a veil argument.

well veil is not obligatory in islam anywayz it is encouraged so that women can protect themselves and be more modest infront of non-mehram men.So its a personal chice for a woman in islam if she wants to wear one or notl.I dont think he needed to step in and tell his opinions when they were not needed

[Angelno15]

Unless u specify what u r talking abt I have no idea where u got the idea that he is correct or his interpretions r right.Listen Quran is interpreted by great islamic scholars of the past and present even they have a little bit of difference in interpretations.But this guy compleely changed the meaning of verse and thats what i am trying to tell u.If u still dont believe me read a version translated by Bukhari,Anees and thn compare what they said and what he said.Just dont use ur interpretation bcz since me and u are not that well qualified to understand some verses who hav e deep manings in them we might take the wrong meaning

No offence but if I read something then I will make up my own mind. Im not a mindless robot who just agrees with what Im being told. Im a christian and I go to church. I listen to what my minister says about the bible but I have read the bible myself and I have my own conclusions. You telling me Im not qualified to understand is insulting. Im not going to believe just because someone else tells me I have to believe it.

[jumpn jza]

Well no offence but if u arent muslim u wont find him offensive bcz it doesnt concern u or doesnt change how ppl think abt u one bit.But since i am a muslim and he has said things in his book which r not true abt my religion and abt my fellow muslims so YES i amoffended by that guy
....fair enuf

[Angelno15]

well veil is not obligatory in islam anywayz it is encouraged so that women can protect themselves and be more modest infront of non-mehram men.So its a personal chice for a woman in islam if she wants to wear one or notl.I dont think he needed to step in and tell his opinions when they were not needed

So u find it acceptable that a teacher or someone who is entering a bank or even someone going through an airport.

And also I think you're mistaken if u think there arent a number of muslim women who are forced to wear a veil to cover their face by their families or husband.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

No offence but if I read something then I will make up my own mind. Im not a mindless robot who just agrees with what Im being told. Im a christian and I go to church. I listen to what my minister says about the bible but I have read the bible myself and I have my own conclusions. You telling me Im not qualified to understand is insulting. Im not going to believe just because someone else tells me I have to believe it.

umm when did i say that?.Read my quote again I said read the book urself and take guidance from scholars bcz they r more learned then us.Why do u go school ?to learn, u could do it byurself right at home.But u need a teacher who needs to explain the context.Similarly in order to understand Quran u need guidance (a teacher) to help u understand it properly

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

So u find it acceptable that a teacher or someone who is entering a bank or even someone going through an airport.

And also I think you're mistaken if u think there arent a number of muslim women who are forced to wear a veil to cover their face by their families or husband.

L

Thats a cultural thing now u r mixing culture with religion.Like i said in Islam it is not forced to wear a veil its a personal choice.Husbands,brothers who force women to wear one r retarded.

[Angelno15]

Unless u specify what u r talking abt I have no idea where u got the idea that he is correct or his interpretions r right.Listen Quran is interpreted by great islamic scholars of the past and present even they have a little bit of difference in interpretations.But this guy compleely changed the meaning of verse and thats what i am trying to tell u.If u still dont believe me read a version translated by Bukhari,Anees and thn compare what they said and what he said.Just dont use ur interpretation bcz since me and u are not that well qualified to understand some verses who hav e deep manings in them we might take the wrong meaning


There u go thats what u said.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

There u go thats what u said.

I meant that u and me cant fully understand some verses without some guidance.Some verses in quran require deep thought and some historical lesson of the life of prophet muhammad(PBUH).If u dont have all that knowledge do u think u will interpret it correctly?.And just want to know since u r a christian and u mentioned this earlier what do u think of Di Vinci's claim abt "Jesus having a daughter".Now u read the bible tell me is it right or wrong

[soladylike]

I've read most of Salman Rushdie's works including Midnight's Children which "catapulted" him to fame.
As an author, I don't think he's that great. He starts out strong but then even he gets bored with the writing; the syntax gets choppy and the whole storytelling becomes a monotonous droning. I had the worst time finishing that book. Zadie Smith's humor is much much much better than Rushdie's and she hit it big with her first novel while she was in her early 20s.
For a man who is against Islam, he sure uses a lot of it in his books. The Satanic Verses yeah that was a given but even in Midnight's Children which has nothing to do with religion really, the main characters are Muslims.
The guy has an agenda against Islam. No doubt. Just like that woman, Wafa Sultan.

I don't think he's done anything that significant to deserve knighthood.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

I've read most of Salman Rushdie's works including Midnight's Children which "catapulted" him to fame.
As an author, I don't think he's that great. He starts out strong but then even he gets bored with the writing; the syntax gets choppy and the whole storytelling becomes a monotonous droning. I had the worst time finishing that book. Zadie Smith's humor is much much much better than Rushdie's and she hit it big with her first novel while she was in her early 20s.
For a man who is against Islam, he sure uses a lot of it in his books. The Satanic Verses yeah that was a given but even in Midnight's Children which has nothing to do with religion really, the main characters are Muslims.
The guy has an agenda against Islam. No doubt. Just like that woman, Wafa Sultan.

I don't think he's done anything that significant to deserve knighthood.

Thanku like I said before the guy has an agenda against islam nothing else.He is no scholar no intellect.Just a person fed by U.K to accomplish its task of portraying a dark image of muslims

[Angelno15]

I meant that u and me cant fully understand some verses without some guidance.Some verses in quran require deep thought and some historical lesson of the life of prophet muhammad(PBUH).If u dont have all that knowledge do u think u will interpret it correctly?.And just want to know since u r a christian and u mentioned this earlier what do u think of Di Vinci's claim abt "Jesus having a daughter".Now u read the bible tell me is it right or wrong

Yeah I agree that there were verses that I didnt understand but when I did read the Quran there was alot I agreed with aswell. I had an english text Quran which helped and I did research those passages that confused me such The verse of the sword (I cant remember on the top of my head which verse it was) as I thought Islam was a peace loving religion. But we'll leave that for now.

I dont believe personally that Jesus did have a child but like I said I cant tell you that u musnt believe that he didnt have a child because the bible is there for your interpretation. But nowhere in the Bible does it even say he ahd a wife and child.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

Yeah I agree that there were verses that I didnt understand but when I did read the Quran there was alot I agreed with aswell. I had an english text Quran which helped and I did research those passages that confused me such The verse of the sword (I cant remember on the top of my head which verse it was) as I thought Islam was a peace loving religion. But we'll leave that for now.

I dont believe personally that Jesus did have a child but like I said I cant tell you that u musnt believe that he didnt have a child because the bible is there for your interpretation. But nowhere in the Bible does it even say he ahd a wife and child.

The verse u r reffering to is the one where Allah tells the muslims to take up swords if they r attacked.Islam is a peaceloving religion but it makes no sense thatone person is coming to kill me,my wife,my children and burn my house while i stand there do nothing.Islam has told us to defend ourself in these kind of situations.

Second its nowhere in bible that he had a child,or a wife or he got married.Do any interpretation u want there is no verse where it is written that he had a child.So i would rather follow the bible than an author who sellshis books to make some cash

[soladylike]

Thanku like I said before the guy has an agenda against islam nothing else.He is no scholar no intellect.Just a person fed by U.K to accomplish its task of portraying a dark image of muslims

Of course he does.
Nobody paid attention to him as an author until the whole Ayatollah fatwa controversy stirred up. He's not a very good author.
Honestly, if it weren't for the whole drama, he'd be a no namer.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

Of course he does.
Nobody paid attention to him as an author until the whole Ayatollah fatwa controversy stirred up. He's not a very good author.
Honestly, if it weren't for the whole drama, he'd be a no namer.

WERD i dont knwo why muslims even bothered to get up all hyped up abt his stupd book.He wanted attention and he got it

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

you are an islmaic fundementalist who gets no pussy. typical of people on this site.

just shows the level of intelligence some posters have on this site :p

[soladylike]

WERD i dont knwo why muslims even bothered to get up all hyped up abt his stupd book.He wanted attention and he got it

That's the trend nowadays, no?
If you're doing shitty in life and no one is paying attention to your so called articles and books, then speak out against Islam or write something blasting it and automatically, you're big.
It's like a friggin' "Get out of jail free" card. No joke.

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

That's the trend nowadays, no?
If you're doing shitty in life and no one is paying attention to your so called articles and books, then speak out against Islam or write something blasting it and automatically, you're big.
It's like a friggin' "Get out of jail free" card. No joke.

lol why do u think FOX Newsis the most watched news channel in U.S right now beating CNN :p .Any person who says something against islam is considered a hero, a saviour by the western media .Warda,salman rushdie r just one of these ppl.No knowledge just B.S in their books and they r considered literates in western world what a joke

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

Well, "born to break rulz," I'm sure your quite the rebel, and I'm sure you, (who can't even form a coherent and grammatically correct sentence together) can form arguments which rivals litererary genius'. You are just another al-queda member.
Yes i am one :dance3: now tell me where ur house is.I want to blow it up bitch

[BornToBreak_Rulz]

why are there so many of these nerds like "born to break rulz" on this site? Basically, these guys live in a western country. They are products of racial injustice, and thier brown skin inhibits and obstucts social assimilation. Their strict upbrininging combined with their skin color, prevents any social interactions with the oppsite sex, those lasivious female creatures who tempt them so. Therefore, they resort back to thier 'roots," but misinterpert the teachings, a "flawed" interpertation of islam, sprouting violence and hate, they use these teachings to "rebel," against the "white world," to give them a false security of hope, as well as making them believe that they are courageous and strong. They spread thier idelogical theism onto ratedesi, becasue they have a curfew at Five Pm, which gives them full freedom to be a "internet rebel." god, so typical.

meh i am out.I know u r bored too nothing to do on RD tonight, why dont u go and read salman rushdie's book.I will go watch a watch a movie or call my associates in afghanistan

[soladylike]

lol why do u think FOX Newsis the most watched news channel in U.S right now beating CNN :p .Any person who says something against islam is considered a hero, a saviour by the western media .Warda,salman rushdie r just one of these ppl.No knowledge just B.S in their books and they r considered literates in western world what a joke

There are some journalists who delved further in Wafa Sultan's story about how the Muslim brotherhood shot her professor in front of her eyes in class. The story never checked out. There was no killing on her campus. Much less in a classroom.
Apparently the woman and her family had hit rock bottom financially. But after her interview on Al Jazeera, of which the world saw the "edited" version, she's doing VERY WELL financially.

[Angelno15]

The verse u r reffering to is the one where Allah tells the muslims to take up swords if they r attacked.Islam is a peaceloving religion but it makes no sense thatone person is coming to kill me,my wife,my children and burn my house while i stand there do nothing.Islam has told us to defend ourself in these kind of situations.

Second its nowhere in bible that he had a child,or a wife or he got married.Do any interpretation u want there is no verse where it is written that he had a child.So i would rather follow the bible than an author who sellshis books to make some cash

See I dont agree that that is what the verse meant. I think it meant slain all those that dont believe in Islam. There are other verses but I really couldnt tell which of the top of my head.

Secondly I dont think you understand what Im trying to say. Rushdie interpreted some of the Quran the same way I had interreted it and I agreed with some of his conclusions. The difference with The Da Vinci Code was just because someone wrote that he had a child doesnt mean he did. There was no evidence to suggest he did.

[soladylike]

See I dont agree that that is what the verse meant. I think it meant slain all those that dont believe in Islam. There are other verses but I really couldnt tell which of the top of my head.

Secondly I dont think you understand what Im trying to say. Rushdie interpreted some of the Quran the same way I had interreted it and I agreed with some of his conclusions. The difference with The Da Vinci Code was just because someone wrote that he had a child doesnt mean he did. There was no evidence to suggest he did.

Did that verse begin with "Fight all those"?

[WildWolfdog]

The guy is a literary version of Paris Hilton, except more of a whore. Willing to do anything and everything to try to stay relevant in the public's eye.

[Angelno15]

Did that verse begin with "Fight all those"?

I think it began with "Fight those that do not believe in Allah...."

[soladylike]

I think it began with "Fight those that do not believe in Allah...."

Yeah, that's the infamous verse hitting the market these days to show Islam as barbaric and violent.
The chapters in the Quran all have a pretext. Without a proper commentary, the verses will seem pretty vague. The commentary gives the background of the verse, why it was revealed, how it was followed then, and how it should be followed today.
Self interpretation is a bit dodgy when it comes to the Quran.

[Angelno15]

Yeah, that's the infamous verse hitting the market these days to show Islam as barbaric and violent.
The chapters in the Quran all have a pretext. Without a proper commentary, the verses will seem pretty vague. The commentary gives the background of the verse, why it was revealed, how it was followed then, and how it should be followed today.
Self interpretation is a bit dodgy when it comes to the Quran.

Lol please dont undermine the text. You did ask and its quite a simple text.

You have to admit thats the verse that alot of islamic scholars try to justify and fail every time.

There are others also I think it was 47:4 (iwhich should be right as Ive just looked it up in one of my text books) that also said that those who dont believe you shall smite off their heads. Something along the lines of that.

But I really dont want to argue over which religion is best.

[jumpn jza]

The guy is a literary version of Paris Hilton, except more of a whore. Willing to do anything and everything to try to stay relevant in the public's eye.

i just got this off wiki, its about the satanic verses

One of these sequences contains most of the elements that have been criticized as offensive to Muslims. It is a transformed re-narration of the life of the prophet Muhammad (called "Mahound" or "the Messenger" in the novel) in Mecca ("Jahilia"). At its centre is the episode of the "Satanic Verses", in which the prophet first pronounces a revelation in favour of the old polytheistic deities in order to win over the population, but later renounces this revelation as an error induced by Shaitan. There are also two fictional opponents of the "Messenger": a demonic heathen priestess, Hind, and an irreverent skeptic and satirical poet, Baal. When the prophet returns to the city in triumph, Baal organises an underground brothel where the prostitutes assume the identities of the prophet's wives. Also, one of the prophet's companions claims that he, doubting the "Messenger"'s authenticity, has subtly altered portions of the Qur'an as they were dictated to him.

The second sequence tells the story of Ayesha, an Indian peasant girl who claims to be receiving revelations from the Archangel Gibreel. She entices all her village community to embark on a foot pilgrimage to Mecca, claiming that they will be able to walk on foot across the Arabian Sea. The pilgrimage ends in a catastrophic climax as the believers all walk into the water and disappear, amid disturbingly conflicting testimonies from observers about whether they just drowned or were in fact miraculously able to cross the sea.

i find that quite intriguing actually..i find that quite intriguing actually...it can be analyzed and admired (and criticized) on so many intricate levels, what does it mean? - what values and ideas does it convey? It presents religion as one big myth by satirizing the propogation of faith to the masses. It shows how a massive population can be influenced much greater when religious rhetoric is used to persuade them...

im gonna go read this book

[soladylike]

Lol please dont undermine the text. You did ask and its quite a simple text.

You have to admit thats the verse that alot of islamic scholars try to justify and fail every time.

There are others also I think it was 47:4 (iwhich should be right as Ive just looked it up in one of my text books) that also said that those who dont believe you shall smite off their heads. Something along the lines of that.

But I really dont want to argue over which religion is best.

Listen sweetheart, don't give me that ambivalent argument with the "I don't want to argue religion" disclaimer.
I wasn't undermining the text. I was giving you a bloody explanation for it, the guideline for how a verse in the Quran is read and understood.
The Quran is NOT a simple text. In fact, no holy scripture/ text is a SIMPLE text.
If you don't want to accept that, then say that.
You know WHY "a lot of Islamic scholars try to justify" the verse? Because of how much it's used in propaganda. And don't you think that if "a lot of islamic scholars" are trying to explain the verse then MAYBE they're trying to tell you what it ACTUALLY means. That entire verse is 4 lines long. It doesn't just end at "Fight wherever you find them".

No one is arguing over which religion is best. Don't pin the blame on me if you're thinking that. I never claimed that Islam is the best.
I simply told you about the verse and what the proper way is to understand the verses in the Quran.

[WildWolfdog]

i just got this off wiki, its about the satanic verses



i find that quite intriguing actually..i find that quite intriguing actually...it can be analyzed and admired (and criticized) on so many intricate levels, what does it mean? - what values and ideas does it convey? It presents religion as one big myth by satirizing the propogation of faith to the masses. It shows how a massive population can be influenced much greater when religious rhetoric is used to persuade them...

im gonna go read this book

Wat's intriguing about it? I have the adobe version of the book on my comp, I read a few pages every now and then when I get the time and feel like it. I haven't reached that part yet but it's pretty offensive to muslims. It's basically taking the revelations and making fun of it and TRYING to put a profoud twist on it "oh, it wasn't real, this is probably what happened, haha, the Prophet made it up, he first tried something and it didn't work so he tried something else" - to put it bluntly, I would kick Rushdie's ass if I ever met him when he wasn't surrounded by security. Like someone else said, you're not muslim so you won't get it.

To make an analogical comparison, he could be talking about your birth and putting a twist on it by talking about how your mother had cheated on your father and was lying to all the relatives and that she never wanted to have a child but was stuck with it because of her extra-marital romp and wanted to kill the child and was forced to marry your dad. Obviously none of this is true but writing something so fucked up and trying to hide behind an "oh it's only fictional and for literary purposes" shield is not possible. Especially when you are basing it on something which millions of people hold to be true and revere.

[jumpn jza]

Wat's intriguing about it? I have the adobe version of the book on my comp, I read a few pages every now and then when I get the time and feel like it. I haven't reached that part yet but it's pretty offensive to muslims. It's basically taking the revelations and making fun of it and TRYING to put a profoud twist on it "oh, it wasn't real, this is probably what happened, haha, the Prophet made it up, he first tried something and it didn't work so he tried something else" - to put it bluntly, I would kick Rushdie's ass if I ever met him when he wasn't surrounded by security. Like someone else said, you're not muslim so you won't get it.

To make an analogical comparison, he could be talking about your birth and putting a twist on it by talking about how your mother had cheated on your father and was lying to all the relatives and that she never wanted to have a child but was stuck with it because of her extra-marital romp and wanted to kill the child and was forced to marry your dad. Obviously none of this is true but writing something so fucked up and trying to hide behind an "oh it's only fictional and for literary purposes" shield is not possible. Especially when you are basing it on something which millions of people hold to be true and revere.

The irreverence itself moulded into a fictional story is bound to be an interesting read (ever seen the movie "Dogma"??)...btw...why is religion so off limits??

Anyway, when i finish reading the book, i'll make my decision about whether it's good or not....but for now, i'll call it "interesting"...

What is Rushdie trying to convey by naming characters "baal" (pagan god of the bible) and Hind?? - i think its satirizing a conflict between the mythical god's of that time into a funny tale...

ohh come on man...its just fiction...

[WildWolfdog]

The irreverence itself moulded into a fictional story is bound to be an interesting read (ever seen the movie "Dogma")...btw...why is religion so off limits??

Anyway, when i finish reading the book, i'll make my decision about whether it's good or not....but for now, i'll call it "interesting"...

What is Rushdie trying to convey by naming characters "baal" (pagan god of the bible) and Hind?? - i think its satirizing a conflict between the mythical god's of that time into a funny tale...

ohh come on man...its just fiction...

Religion is off-limits because it's something very personal. It's like moms being off limit in playground fights. Or homegrown loyal superstar atheletes being off-limits when you're bashing a rival's team. It's just a given.

It's a long book, and confusing in the first few pages but it becomes more organized as it goes along. What's he trying to convey by naming characters certain names? I think we all know what - lol asking it won't make it any more "oohhh, aaahhh" worthy. It's like a banned member of ratedesi writing a short story about the forums and he names himself clark or "superman" and names sameer lex - or hitler. We all know what he's trying to imply.

[nayeemx33]

Listen sweetheart, don't give me that ambivalent argument with the "I don't want to argue religion" disclaimer.
I wasn't undermining the text. I was giving you a bloody explanation for it, the guideline for how a verse in the Quran is read and understood.
The Quran is NOT a simple text. In fact, no holy scripture/ text is a SIMPLE text.
If you don't want to accept that, then say that.
You know WHY "a lot of Islamic scholars try to justify" the verse? Because of how much it's used in propaganda. And don't you think that if "a lot of islamic scholars" are trying to explain the verse then MAYBE they're trying to tell you what it ACTUALLY means. That entire verse is 4 lines long. It doesn't just end at "Fight wherever you find them".

No one is arguing over which religion is best. Don't pin the blame on me if you're thinking that. I never claimed that Islam is the best.
I simply told you about the verse and what the proper way is to understand the verses in the Quran.

OMG
Hiiii :Oops:

[jumpn jza]

Religion is off-limits because it's something very personal. It's like moms being off limit in playground fights. Or homegrown loyal superstar atheletes being off-limits when you're bashing a rival's team. It's just a given.

It's a long book, and confusing in the first few pages but it becomes more organized as it goes along. What's he trying to convey by naming characters certain names? I think we all know what - lol asking it won't make it any more "oohhh, aaahhh" worthy. It's like a banned member of ratedesi writing a short story about the forums and he names himself clark or "superman" and names sameer lex - or hitler. We all know what he's trying to imply.

Religion shouldn't be off limits because not everyone thinks its "all that"...there are many people out there who think its just plain silly and its only fair that they are allowed to publish material with that perspective...nothing should be off limits...

[SarcasmicBengali]

wow...i really respect this guy heaps, but if i was him i would have told the queen to shove the knighthood up her ass and that i dont need her approval...that would be cool...

Other than that i respect guys that stir up intellectual controversy, its actually quite funny when retarded camel fuckers like Ayatollah Khomeni put a fatwa on him coz it gives credence to the cause of free speech...

LONG LIVE SALMAN RUSHDIE :cheers:

however i dont agree with his stance on the hijab...

tagore did that...
altho in protest of what the Brits were doing in India at the time... :p

[BKnight]

So now Padma Laxmi can say "m'lord SIR Rushdie, please fuck me harder" ....:-s

[WildWolfdog]

Religion shouldn't be off limits because not everyone thinks its "all that"...there are many people out there who think its just plain silly and its only fair that they are allowed to publish material with that perspective...nothing should be off limits...

Not really. There are some people, but not "many". I don't know what the percentages are, but I doubt that the percentage of people who don't believe in religion at all as opposed to people who believe in some form of religion is very low. I'm thinking about 3-4% of the world's population - and I'm being generous. Sorry, that's not even big enough to give them minority status yet.

Some things should stay off limits, for the betterment of society as a whole. Religion is one of those things. No one is saying don't question religion, but we're no where close to the point where it should be "okay" and "good fun" to openly make fun of religion and be accepted by the followers of that religion where they go "oh you, haha, naughty boy".

[jumpn jza]

tagore did that...
altho in protest of what the Brits were doing in India at the time... :p

whatta sickunt

[SarcasmicBengali]

In his book "Satanic verses".He quoted the verses of Quran and completely twisted them, gave them a new meaning and showed that these verses sppread hate and violence.I will call that B.S not fiction

random author's interpretations of the Quran to make a few bucks by writing a fictional book = bs

Islamic extemists interpretations of Quran to spread messages of hate through violence = not important enough... so lets try to kill the guy who wrote a book...?

way to get ur priorities in order...

[Cunard]

congrats to mr rushdie =)

im sure some of the Taliban (the same guys that burned down hundreds of schools and shot up countless teachers and behead aid workers) supporters on here are probably pretty choked up about this :p

[Cunard]

random author's interpretations of the Quran to make a few bucks by writing a fictional book = bs

Islamic extemists interpretations of Quran to spread messages of hate through violence = not important enough... so lets try to kill the guy who wrote a book...?

way to get ur priorities in order...

:rofl:

well put

[WildWolfdog]

congrats to mr rushdie =)

im sure some of the Taliban (the same guys that burned down hundreds of schools and shot up countless teachers and behead aid workers) supporters on here are probably pretty choked up about this :p

Most of us don't care enough to hate rushdie to the extent where we're constantly looking for updates on his life and actions and then bringing them to light so we can try and convince others that hating him is the right and sensible thing to do. The same can't be said for you and your obsessions.

[jumpn jza]

Not really. There are some people, but not "many". I don't know what the percentages are, but I doubt that the percentage of people who don't believe in religion at all as opposed to people who believe in some form of religion is very low. I'm thinking about 3-4% of the world's population - and I'm being generous. Sorry, that's not even big enough to give them minority status yet.

Its not about being given a minority status, its not about percentages...and your forgetting that not everyone shares the same views as you do, there are many out there that like this sort of stuff, the popularity of the book is testament to that...

Some things should stay off limits, for the betterment of society as a whole. Religion is one of those things. No one is saying don't question religion, but we're no where close to the point where it should be "okay" and "good fun" to openly make fun of religion and be accepted by the followers of that religion where they go "oh you, haha, naughty boy".

Well, it is offensive i agree, but so is family guy in the way it depicts jesus....do i see any fatwas being put out on Seth McFarlane??...ppl like you need to lighten up in my opinion...

[SarcasmicBengali]

Unless u specify what u r talking abt I have no idea where u got the idea that he is correct or his interpretions r right.Listen Quran is interpreted by great islamic scholars of the past and present even they have a little bit of difference in interpretations.But this guy compleely changed the meaning of verse and thats what i am trying to tell u.If u still dont believe me read a version translated by Bukhari,Anees and thn compare what they said and what he said.Just dont use ur interpretation bcz since me and u are not that well qualified to understand some verses who hav e deep manings in them we might take the wrong meaning

umm... r u saying that normal everyday Muslims don't have the ability to understand what's written in the Quran...?

so how do you expect everyday Muslims to follow Islam if it's not accessible or comprehensible by everyday Muslims...?

[WildWolfdog]

Its not about being given a minority status, its not about percentages...and your forgetting that not everyone shares the same views as you do, there are many out there that like this sort of stuff, the popularity of the book is testament to that...

There are many out there who like the goth culture. There are also many out there who are into pedophilia and degration of women, the content on the internet and it's popularity is a testament to that. What's your point?

Well, it is offensive i agree, but so is family guy in the way it depicts jesus....do i see any fatwas being put out on Seth McFarlane??...ppl like you need to lighten up in my opinion...

Family guy doesn't pick on one religion. It doesn't constantly try to show it in a bad light and it doesn't make it's living poking fun at religion. Also it's mostly good humored fun. That's not the case with Salman Rushdie and Nonie Darwish and people like those. Family guy doesn't try to take advantage of every possible opportunity to show down a religion and doesn't try to barge into the limelight by trying to "speak the truth on controversial subjects and show their courage by doing so".

People like me need to lighten up? lol, well, that's just your uninformed opinion.

[WildWolfdog]

umm... r u saying that normal everyday Muslims don't have the ability to understand what's written in the Quran...?

so how do you expect everyday Muslims to follow Islam if it's not accessible or comprehensible by everyday Muslims...?

Maybe he's saying that some things are not as easy to interpret as most things might be - and in those cases it's best to get help of scholars and people who have devoted their entire lives to the subject.

Use common sense, don't argue for the sake of arguing and trying to prove some unnecessary point.

[SarcasmicBengali]

I meant that u and me cant fully understand some verses without some guidance.Some verses in quran require deep thought and some historical lesson of the life of prophet muhammad(PBUH).If u dont have all that knowledge do u think u will interpret it correctly?.And just want to know since u r a christian and u mentioned this earlier what do u think of Di Vinci's claim abt "Jesus having a daughter".Now u read the bible tell me is it right or wrong

it is F-I-C-T-I-O-N...
most ppl who have read it havent believed a word of it except for the ppl that started a shit storm about it...
same goes for THE SATANIC VERSES...

[jumpn jza]

i think generally our muslim brethren get a lil "wah wah!!" over this shit...the simpsons took the piss out of ganesha , family guy makes sooo much fun of jesus christ....but oh no, if someone even alludes to the prophet Mo some dickhead issues a fatwa...

[SarcasmicBengali]

Maybe he's saying that some things are not as easy to interpret as most things might be - and in those cases it's best to get help of scholars and people who have devoted their entire lives to the subject.

Use common sense, don't argue for the sake of arguing and trying to prove some unnecessary point.

i'm not doing anything of the sort.
it's just that i've come across this a lot b4...
everyone's gonna have diff. interpretations of something... to tell someone that their interpretation is wrong is what i have a problem with...

and in the case of Islam, arent some of those very scholars misinterpreting Islam to suit their agendas...?

[SarcasmicBengali]

i think generally our muslim brethren get a lil "wah wah!!" over this shit...the simpsons took the piss out of ganesha , family guy makes sooo much fun of jesus christ....but oh no, if someone even alludes to the prophet Mo some dickhead issues a fatwa...

exactly...
i mean Islam's got a LOT more problems than other religions in terms of their image to the world...
but instead of dealing with that, or providing a unified front... they'd rather freak out bout every lil issue that's no where close to thousands dying in the name of the religion every other day :|

[WildWolfdog]

i think generally our muslim brethren get a lil "wah wah!!" over this shit...the simpsons took the piss out of ganesha , family guy makes sooo much fun of jesus christ....but oh no, if someone even alludes to the prophet Mo some dickhead issues a fatwa...

Yeh, just like our athiest brethen get more than a lil "wah wah" over the fact that their kids have to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance when in school and during other unisions at public events, and the fact that they have to put their hand on the bible in court when they swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Hindus and Christians didn't take too kindly to the fact that the simpsons and family guy "took the piss" out of their religions, nor should they.

[jumpn jza]

There are many out there who like the goth culture. There are also many out there who are into pedophilia and degration of women, the content on the internet and it's popularity is a testament to that. What's your point?

Family guy doesn't pick on one religion. It doesn't constantly try to show it in a bad light and it doesn't make it's living poking fun at religion. Also it's mostly good humored fun. That's not the case with Salman Rushdie and Nonie Darwish and people like those. Family guy doesn't try to take advantage of every possible opportunity to show down a religion and doesn't try to barge into the limelight by trying to "speak the truth on controversial subjects and show their courage by doing so".

People like me need to lighten up? lol, well, that's just your uninformed opinion.

ohh lighten up...its just a bit of fun, every religion has been criticized and mocked, its not unusual...every religion!!

All i'm saying is that authors have every right to poke fun at whatever religion they want without having contract hits out on em!

[WildWolfdog]

i'm not doing anything of the sort.
it's just that i've come across this a lot b4...
everyone's gonna have diff. interpretations of something... to tell someone that their interpretation is wrong is what i have a problem with...

and in the case of Islam, arent some of those very scholars misinterpreting Islam to suit their agendas...?

Yeah you're right in the fact that the some people are much too focused on critisizing other people who critisize their religion, but there are many who aren't obsessed with this but feel the need to defend their beliefs from chronic bashers and I have no problem with that.

There are some who misinterpret Islam to suit their agendas and it's hard for common people to differentiate between credible sources and pseudo-scholars who are speaking out of their ass, but that doesn't mean we should disregard every scholar because we might not be able to differentiate. If someone feels it's an important issue, a little research can go a long way in finding credible scholars whose only interest is to help their fellow believers in correctly following their religion.

[soladylike]

i'm not doing anything of the sort.
it's just that i've come across this a lot b4...
everyone's gonna have diff. interpretations of something... to tell someone that their interpretation is wrong is what i have a problem with...

and in the case of Islam, arent some of those very scholars misinterpreting Islam to suit their agendas...?

Of course they are. There is no argument about that. But it's the amount of coverage they're given that makes them seem like they are a majority. Just like radical feminists are given more attention than proper feminists so now the stereotype about feminists is that they hate men and are hairy dykes.
I know for a fact that there are proper Muslim scholars HERE in America who are denied positions as Islamic Studies professors in US universities because they can do justice to both sides. In fact, the more Islam bashing the person is or the more Islam illiterate, the more likely they are to land that job.
Same for those Muslim kids who sit on those interfaith panels you see on TV or that Barbara Walters or Connie Chung decides to interview. They have got to know jack about Islam or be extremists. Otherwise no can do.

[WildWolfdog]

ohh lighten up...its just a bit of fun, every religion has been criticized and mocked, its not unusual...every religion!!

All i'm saying is that authors have every right to poke fun at whatever religion they want without having contract hits out on em!

And all I'm saying is they don't have every right to poke fun at whatever religion and issue they want to poke fun at without having to face some consequences (which doesn't necessarily mean "death threat-fatwas").

[jumpn jza]

Yeh, just like our athiest brethen get more than a lil "wah wah" over the fact that their kids have to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance when in school and during other unisions at public events, and the fact that they have to put their hand on the bible in court when they swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Hindus and Christians didn't take too kindly to the fact that the simpsons and family guy "took the piss" out of their religions, nor should they.

yes, but relatively speaking...who gets offended at this kinda thing the most?? - im an athiest and i would prefer the government to act as secularly as possible - but how worked up do i get over it??

It is my GENERAL opinion that muslims are the ones who over react when they're religion is poked fun at...fair point?

[jumpn jza]

And all I'm saying is they don't have every right to poke fun at whatever religion and issue they want to poke fun at without having to face some consequences (which doesn't necessarily mean "death threat-fatwas").

what consequences do u believe are sufficient?? - jailtime??

[WildWolfdog]

yes, but relatively speaking...who gets offended at this kinda thing the most?? - im an athiest and i would prefer the government to act as secularly as possible - but how worked up do i get over it??

It is my GENERAL opinion that muslims are the ones who over react when they're religion is poked fun at...fair point?

Uh, tons of people all over the world get offended by it. Just because you don't get worked up over it doesn't mean it's the norm and most athiests are as care-free about it. The court cases have reached the supreme courts and generated a huge national buzz and debates over this issue and many similar ones. I think that speaks volumes about how much atheists care about it.

Muslims do overreact more these days and I've pointed that out many times and hate the whole "woe is us, everyone hates us and we don't deserve it one bit", so yes it's a fair point. But then you also have to agree that most of the coverage muslims receive is negative and it's a card many authors and other personalities like to play because they know it will make them famous, no?

what consequences do u believe are sufficient?? - jailtime??

Hate mail (minus death threats), being protested against, disliked and spoken not too highly of, being banned from podiums and public events where you were planning to speak because of public displeasure over your work is all fair game.

[SarcasmicBengali]

Yeah you're right in the fact that the some people are much too focused on critisizing other people who critisize their religion, but there are many who aren't obsessed with this but feel the need to defend their beliefs from chronic bashers and I have no problem with that.

There are some who misinterpret Islam to suit their agendas and it's hard for common people to differentiate between credible sources and pseudo-scholars who are speaking out of their ass, but that doesn't mean we should disregard every scholar because we might not be able to differentiate. If someone feels it's an important issue, a little research can go a long way in finding credible scholars whose only interest is to help their fellow believers in correctly following their religion.

agreed...
and of course not all scholars should be dismissed and i also agree with you that others feel like questioning or finding out more about their religion, they should do so...
i just had a problem with someone who claimed he didn't know much about the deeper meaning, telling someone else that their interpretation was wrong. thats all...

there was a thread a few days ago bout a guy who heard something bout Islam and started questioning it.
my solution to him was to do as much research as possible.
and yes it's hard to distinguish between the propaganda spreaders and the credibles ones...
at the end of day, its your faith which is why the only person that tell you how to live your life based on that is you...
granted the last part is just my two cents :p

[jumpn jza]

Uh, tons of people all over the world get offended by it. Just because you don't get worked up over it doesn't mean it's the norm and most athiests are as care-free about it. The court cases have reached the supreme courts and generated a huge national buzz and debates over this issue and many similar ones. I think that speaks volumes about how much atheists care about it.

Muslims do overreact more these days and I've pointed that out many times and hate the whole "woe is us, everyone hates us and we don't deserve it one bit", so yes it's a fair point. But then you also have to agree that most of the coverage muslims receive is negative and it's a card many authors and other personalities like to play because they know it will make them famous, no?



Hate mail (minus death threats), being protested against, disliked and spoken not too highly of, being banned from podiums and public events where you were planning to speak because of public displeasure over your work is all fair game.

ok i'll agree with you on the first part...i cant blame anyone for getting offended...but im totally against censorship man, that shit's wrong, they shouldn't be banned from anything...im also against banning crazy imams from talking shit...FREE SPEECH :cheers:

[Cunard]

Most of us don't care enough to hate rushdie to the extent where we're constantly looking for updates on his life and actions and then bringing them to light so we can try and convince others that hating him is the right and sensible thing to do. The same can't be said for you and your obsessions.

go burn a school down instead of wasting time on RD.....im sure mullah omar would be pleased

[jumpn jza]

go burn a school down instead of wasting time on RD.....im sure mullah omar would be pleased
who is mullah omar?

[Cunard]

who is mullah omar?

WildWolfDogs idol....and the Talibans "immortal" leader

[jumpn jza]

WildWolfDogs idol....and the Talibans "immortal" leader

ohh ok...is that true WWD?

[WildWolfdog]

agreed...
and of course not all scholars should be dismissed and i also agree with you that others feel like questioning or finding out more about their religion, they should do so...
i just had a problem with someone who claimed he didn't know much about the deeper meaning, telling someone else that their interpretation was wrong. thats all...

there was a thread a few days ago bout a guy who heard something bout Islam and started questioning it.
my solution to him was to do as much research as possible.
and yes it's hard to distinguish between the propaganda spreaders and the credibles ones...
at the end of day, its your faith which is why the only person that tell you how to live your life based on that is you...
granted the last part is just my two cents :p

Lol yeah I agree. I think we're pretty much on the same page. I don't know which thread you're talking about but I think I may have an idea.

[WildWolfdog]

ok i'll agree with you on the first part...i cant blame anyone for getting offended...but im totally against censorship man, that shit's wrong, they shouldn't be banned from anything...im also against banning crazy imams from talking shit...FREE SPEECH :cheers:

Well I disagree haha I think censorship is sometimes necessary, and that goes for crazy imams as well. A lot of people are on the fence when it comes to a lot of issues and the crazy hardcore supporters of certain causes (non-religious issues included) can affect a person's opinion even if it's by spewing bullshit.

[WildWolfdog]

*Edit, posted on next page*

[Space-Cowboy]

Some interesting points.... Just my personal opinion, but if you think about it; the people that were pissed off at him played right into his hands. He's only popular because there were so many that gave him the knee jerk reaction that he was looking for. In effect, if people hadn't given him said 'fuel', much in the same way that one might ignore a forum troll and not give him the attention he's looking for; he might very likely have been a nobody today instead of the world celeb that he is...

[WildWolfdog]

Some interesting points.... Just my personal opinion, but if you think about it; the people that were pissed off at him played right into his hands. He's only popular because there were so many that gave him the knee jerk reaction that he was looking for. In effect, if people hadn't given him said 'fuel', much in the same way that one might ignore a forum troll and not give him the attention he's looking for; he might very likely have been a nobody today instead of the world celeb that he is...

On a side note, I actually liked Hamza Yusuf (his style, the stuff he says, etc), thanks for that lol.

[WildWolfdog]

go burn a school down instead of wasting time on RD.....im sure mullah omar would be pleased

Why don't you go blow up a plane instead of wasting time on RD? I'm sure Inderjit Singh Reyat and the Babbar Khalsa group will be extremely pleased.

ohh ok ... is that true WWD?

It's as true as Cunard's love for Palestine and all things Islam - which is to say, not at all.

Whatever Cunard says shouldn't be taken with just a grain of salt, but instead with a whole salt mine.

[Space-Cowboy]

Of course he does.
Nobody paid attention to him as an author until the whole Ayatollah fatwa controversy stirred up. He's not a very good author.
Honestly, if it weren't for the whole drama, he'd be a no namer.

:werd:

[Space-Cowboy]

On a side note, I actually liked Hamza Yusuf (his style, the stuff he says, etc), thanks for that lol.


I don't remember, which vid did I send you? There are tons :p

[WildWolfdog]

I don't remember, which vid did I send you? There are tons :p

I wasn't thanking you for a specific link lol, I was thanking you for telling me about him. Jeeeeez, lol.

[Space-Cowboy]

I wasn't thanking you for a specific link lol, I was thanking you for telling me about him. Jeeeeez, lol.

Here you go:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4236904890349408032&q=Al-Ghazali%2C+The+Alchemist+Of+Happiness&hl=en

But don't thank me, thank soladylike she's the one who found it :Oops:

[jumpn jza]

Well I disagree haha I think censorship is sometimes necessary, and that goes for crazy imams as well. A lot of people are on the fence when it comes to a lot of issues and the crazy hardcore supporters of certain causes (non-religious issues included) can affect a person's opinion even if it's by spewing bullshit.

yes...however who within society decides what is acceptable and what is unacceptable?? - even judging free speech is entirely subjective...

[jumpn jza]

Why don't you go blow up a plane instead of wasting time on RD? I'm sure Inderjit Singh Reyat and the Babbar Khalsa group will be extremely pleased.



It's as true as Cunard's love for Palestine and all things Islam - which is to say, not at all.

Whatever Cunard says shouldn't be taken with just a grain of salt, but instead with a whole salt mine.

lol...nice way of putting it...

[Logical_Uzi]

Salman Rushdie was never a Muslim in the first place.

[southystyle]

hate this guy :mad:

ok ok, im just jealous of who his wife is :(

padma lakshmi :love:

[jumpn jza]

hate this guy :mad:

ok ok, im just jealous of who his wife is :(

padma lakshmi :love:

aint he a playa

[Cunard]

Why don't you go blow up a plane instead of wasting time on RD? I'm sure Inderjit Singh Reyat and the Babbar Khalsa group will be extremely pleased.



It's as true as Cunard's love for Palestine and all things Islam - which is to say, not at all.

Whatever Cunard says shouldn't be taken with just a grain of salt, but instead with a whole salt mine.

so the taliban are terrorists....yes?

as for Babber Khalsa...they never claimed any airline bombing....and no sikh group ever claimed or celebrated the downing of air india...unlike certain people handing out candy and celebrating the downing of the twin towers with cheers of allah akbar and such

[bidhata85]

did any one read "ground beneath her feet"? decent book but too many uninteresting characters got too much attention...

[zai_alam]

Lol please dont undermine the text. You did ask and its quite a simple text.

You have to admit thats the verse that alot of islamic scholars try to justify and fail every time.

There are others also I think it was 47:4 (iwhich should be right as Ive just looked it up in one of my text books) that also said that those who dont believe you shall smite off their heads. Something along the lines of that.

But I really dont want to argue over which religion is best.

Do you understand classical Arabic by any chance?

[nex_man]

There are others also I think it was 47:4 (iwhich should be right as Ive just looked it up in one of my text books) that also said that those who dont believe you shall smite off their heads. Something along the lines of that.
Misquoted Verse #4

Qur'an 47:4 So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle, smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam . Once again a poor translation serves the purpose of the Islam-haters very well. Let us examine a more accurate translation before analyzing the verse: 47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in battle, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

So we now see some grievous mistakes made in the poor translation quoted. 1. The verse makes NO mention whatsoever of "killing and wounding" 2. "Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam " is a complete addition to the verse and is not found anywhere in the Qur'an! 3. That verse does not use the word Jihad at all It is very clear that the context of this verse is in battle, and when in battle the defenders of humanity should attack the unjust oppressors until they are subdued. Professor Shahul Hameed comments on verse 47:4 by saying:

The context of this verse was when the Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and his companions had to leave their home town of Makkah and to emigrate to Madinah. When the people of Madinah had welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Makkans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr. It was just before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight: {And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.} (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

This meant that the Prophet and his companions were not to start the fighting; but to defend themselves against aggressors. That was how fighting was ordained; but we must know that once we fight, we fight to defeat the aggressors, so that we can live without fear of molestation and invasion; so that we can live in peace; so that justice is done. Remember God does not command any one to start fighting; rather He permits people to fight in self defence or for the defence of those who are attacked unjustly. (SOURCE (http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=8922))

The historical context again illustrates a condition of constant struggle and war. In such a condition, God reassures the believers that He is with them, and to therefore have full faith, strength and bravery in battle and not to cower from the enemy. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes: When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour… (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary ) Likewise, Dr. Maher Hathout writes: Clearly, these verses are applicable in the heat of battle and against an aggressive combating force. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49) Muslims are encouraged to restrain the enemy by capturing them, and to therefore minimize loss of life. Moreover, the verse specifically mentions that Muslims should subdue the enemies "until the war lays down its burdens", i.e. until the enemy stops fighting. Similar to this verse: 8:61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).

So the verse is very specific, in that it is limited to the context of a battle and the Muslims should only fight until the enemy is subdued or inclines towards peace i.e. they should not transgress limits. In the event of a battle, the verse guides Muslims to abstain from transgressing limits and only to fight the enemy until they are subdued or cease fighting. Shaykh Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid comments about the treatment of prisoners:

If the Muslims capture them and take them to a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes and putting them in cages like animals. Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and encourage them to enter Islam... ...The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life. (SOURCE (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=13241&dgn=4)) Therefore, Islam has laid out clear rules and regulations for Muslims to follow in the event of war, which is only used as a last resort.



Heres the link to clearing up the misconceptions:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=414&section=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions#5

[nex_man]

And about the satanic whispers, the guy just took cheap shots.


Here's the refutation to that aswell:


Alleged Satanic Verse

18/04/2004


The orientalists allege that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was worried about the enmity of the non-believers in Makkah. In such a state of mind one day went to Ka`bah where he recited to the gathering of believers and non-believers Surah An-Najm 53 which is said to have been revealed at that time.

The allegation is that in the course of its recitation and when he uttered the verse 19-20 “Do you see al Lat and al `Uzza and the other third Manat?” Satan threw in the couplet “Those are the swans exalted; verily their intercession is to be expected”.

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then completed the Surah and at the end of it went into prostration in accordance with the last verse. All those present there, the believers and non-believers also did so except an old Quraishi leader (Umayyah Ibn Khalaf or Al-Walid Ibn Al-Mughirah or Abu Umayyah) who raised a handful of dust and touched it with his forehead saying that would suffice for him. The Quraishi leaders are said to have given out as reason for their prostration themselves, by saying that now that the Prophet had recognized the position of their goddesses as intercessors with Allah, there was in fact no point of quarrel with him.

Afterwards, in the evening (some versions do not specify any time) Jibril came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and asked him to recite the Surah, which he did, still reciting the “satanic verses”. Jibril protested, saying that those were not what had been revealed. At this, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, became very sad and apprehensive of Allah’s wrath. Thereupon two separate passages, 17:73-75 and 22-52 were revealed in reassuring the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the “satanic verses” were repealed. The Quraishi leaders became angry and renewed their enmity and opposition with increased vehemence. Meanwhile the news of non-believers’ prostration reached Abyssinia in the form of rumor of their compromise with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Muslims returned to Makkah.

Reply

The story is so manifestly absurd and untrue that it ought to have been rejected outright as such and not recorded by the chroniclers and traditionalists. But since some of them have recorded it has often been cited as ground for its genuineness, rather than the obviously discrediting features of the story itself.

Imam Fakhr Ad-Din Ar-Razi correctly points out that those who have critically looked at the story have all rejected it as spurious on the grounds of its conflict with the clear testimony of the Qur’an, the rules governing the genuineness of traditions and the dictates of reason.

The Qur’anic evidence against the genuineness of the story is of three kinds.

There are a number of statements in the Qur’an that show that neither Satan nor anyone else could interfere in the process of coming of the revelation. Nor did the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ever entertain any intention of making compromise with the unbelieving leaders, nor did he ever interpolate in the text of the revelation.

The passages cited as having been revealed as a sequel to the incident and for reassuring the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prove to the contrary, showing that he had not made even the slightest move towards making a compromise with the unbelieving leaders.

The internal evidence of Surah An-Najm (53), in connection with the revelation of which the story has been foisted, goes against its spirit and purpose.

THE PASSAGES FROM THE QUR’AN THAT DIRECTLY BELIE THE STORY ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“If he (Messenger) were to invent any saying in Our Name, We should certainly have seized him by the right hand and We should then have surely cut off the artery of his heart"
[Qur’an 60:44-46]

“Say; It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it (the revelation). I follow naught but what is revealed unto me"
[Qur'an 10:15 ]

“No falsehood can approach it from the front, nor from the rear (i.e. neither directly nor indirectly). It is sent-down from Allah the All-Wise, the All-Praiseworthy.”
[Qur'an 41:42]

“We indeed have sent down the recital (the Qur’an) and indeed are its Protectors (from any interference).”
[Qur'an 15:9]

“In what way (We have revealed it), that We may make your heart firm thereby; and We have dictated it in stages.”
[Qur'an 25:32]

It is seen from the above that the Qur’an repeatedly assures that Allah has protected it against any possibility of being tampered with directly or indirectly, that it is not for the Prophet to change it or add to it anything. If he had done so, Allah’s severe punishment would inevitably and irresistibly have befallen him. These clear and positive statements directly contradict the story, which says that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, of his own accord or being deceived by Satan introduced something into the text of revelation. Not only that. The alleged interpolation violated the fundamental teaching of the Qur’an – monotheism (Tauhid) and thus constituted the offence of shirk which Allah warns elsewhere in the Qur’an that He shall under no circumstances forgive.

The story is thus quite contrary to the specific statements of the Qur’an and also to the tenor and purport of its entire text. As such the story is totally unworthy of any credence. This is not simply from a Muslim’s point of view, but also from true historian’s point of view.

The two passages of the Qur’an that are said to have been revealed as a sequel to the story are as follows:

“Indeed they were about to divert you from what We revealed to you, in order that you forge against Us something else, and in that case they would certainly have taken you as a friend. And had We not made you firm, you would almost have inclined towards them a little; and in that case we would have made you taste the double (punishment) in death; and then you would not have found for you as against Us any helper.”
[Qur'an 17:73-75]

These verses were revealed 11 or 12 years after the call to Prophethood.

“Never did We send a Messenger nor a Prophet before you, but that when he formed an intention Satan threw something in his intention; but Allah cancels what Satan throws in and then makes His sign prevail. Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise.
[Qur'an 22:52]

This verse was revealed during the 1st year of Hijrah.

A little careful look at them would at once show that their texts, far from supporting the story, do in fact contradict it.

The first passage shows that it was the unbelievers who attempted to induce the Prophet to making a compromise with them, not that he ever wanted it. The passage further states that Allah made the Prophet’s heart firm against such attempts of the unbelievers. The emphasis here is on the intensity of the unbelievers’ attempts, and Allah’s special favor upon the Prophet making him immune against such efforts and because of such special favor, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not incline towards the unbelievers even a little. Finally the above verse warns that, had the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, been guilty of slight inclination towards the unbelievers’ proposals, he would have been doubly punished by Allah.

It is strange that the orientalists mention the above verses revealed about 8 or 9 years after the alleged incident as assurance from Allah, because during this period so many major events had taken place, including the Hijrah.

The Internal Evidence of Surah An-Najm (53)

The Surah starts emphasizing that,

“He (the Prophet) does not speak out of his desire. It is naught but Wahy (revelation) communicated to him.” In verses 3-4. The Surah declares that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, has not gone astray, nor erred, nor does he speak out of his own desire, but what he gives out is only revelation communicated to him. It is impossible to think that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would immediately add the alleged two verse within this Surah itself, thus contradicting the very essence of the Surah. Though there are over 15 versions of the allegation, all the versions agree that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited the whole of Surah An-Najm on this occasion and prostrated himself at the end of it.

The alleged verses as follows:

“Those are swans exalted. Whose intercession is to be expected.”

These alleged two verses do not fit in any place in the Surah. If we simply insert them after verse 19 and 20 they will read as follows:

“Have you then considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs)
[v.19]

And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the third?
[v.20]

Those are swans exalted. Whose intercession is to be expected.
[???]

Is it for you the males and for Him the females?
[v. 21]

That indeed is a division most unfair
[v.22]

They are but names, which you have named, - you and your fathers- for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to the Guidance from their Lord.
[v.23]

Or shall man have what he wishes?
[v.24]

But to Allah belongs the last (hereafter) and the first (the world)”
[v.25]

A simple glance shows that the alleged satanic verses shown in bold above do not fit in any place in the Surah An-Najm. The whole text from verses 19 to the end of the Surah has a unity and continuity on both theme and sequence. There is no giving-in on the question of intercession by anyone; no relaxation of the principle of individual and personal responsibility, no softening down of denunciation of the conduct of the unbelieving leaders and no room given to accommodating their attitudes.

The following additional information should be noted on this insinuation.

The story has come down in about a dozen varying versions and does not have a strong chain of narrators (Isnad). It is technically regarded as Mursal – i.e. its Isnad does not go up beyond the second generation (Tabi`un) after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. One of the versions traces back to `Abd Allah Ibn `Abbas as eye-witness, who was born some five years after the alleged event was said to have taken place. Apart from this, all the persons in the Isnad have names who are considered weak, unreliable or unknown.

The report itself suffer from grave differences and disagreements in all the four essential respects, namely:

* The occasion of the incident;

* Nature of the Prophet’s alleged act;

* The wording of the alleged “satanic verses”- as many as 15 different texts;

* The effect or sequel of the alleged incident.

There are reports that say, more significantly, that while the unbelievers heard the alleged “satanic verses”, the believers did not at all hear them. All the versions unanimously show that no objection or uneasiness was expressed by any of the believers at the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, alleged utterance of the verses, nor to his alleged dropping of them subsequently. If such an unusual incident as the giving out of some compromising verses and their subsequent withdrawal had at all taken place, it would have been narrated by some of the many Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

`Abdallah Ibn Mas`ud says that Surah An-Najm was the first Surah, which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited in front of a gathering of believers and non-believers at the Ka`bah compound. When he finished it and went into prostration, all those who were present, believers and non-believers also prostrated themselves. It is an acknowledged fact that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Muslims could not publicly and in a body perform prayer or recite the Qur’an at the Ka`bah before the conversion of `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and the revelation of Sura An-Najm took place after his conversion. Conversion of `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, was a great gain to Islam.

The Qur’an has the stunning effect on every non-believing Quraishi who heard it and their leaders such as `Utbah Ibn Rabi`ah themselves had confessed to this. As such, the non-believers without realizing what they were doing would have gone to prostration as commanded in the last verse of the Surah, together with the Muslims. Since the Quraishi leaders prostrated themselves or made a show of prostration, they must have been pressed by their followers to explain their act. When they realized what they have done, they would have tried to find a justification for their unintentional act of abiding by the Qur’anic command.

The other fact that needs emphasizing in this connection is that the text of the so-called “satanic verses” was no new composition made on the occasion. It was an old couplet that the Quraishi pagans used to recite in praise of their goddess while circumambulating the Ka`bah. It is also to be remembered that the unbelievers used to create noise and disturbances whenever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, or Muslims recited the Qur’an publicly. Therefore, it is very likely that when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited the Surah and mentioned al-Lat and al-`Uzza in the course of his recitation and in a denunciatory strain, some of the Quraishi unbelievers instantly interrupted and protested by shouting out the couplets. Significantly enough, some versions of the story clearly state that the “satanic verses” were uttered not by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, but by Satan or some unbelievers, and they specifically state that the Muslims did not hear it.

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/880-alleged-satanic-verses.html

http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/mohamed/1424/misconception/article04.shtml

[nikefc7]

i got tht book lying at home and to be honest its just lame, the only reason satanic verses gained so much poublicity was due to the amount of criticism is gained. its quite ironic the knighthoos because if i recall correctly at the opening few pages of the book he talk about how he'd love to come england quite simply have sex with the queen.

[Space-Cowboy]

i got tht book lying at home and to be honest its just lame, the only reason satanic verses gained so much poublicity was due to the amount of criticism is gained. its quite ironic the knighthoos because if i recall correctly at the opening few pages of the book he talk about how he'd love to come england quite simply have sex with the queen.


I'm guessing the queen overlooked that part :p

[desi_uk]

hes a prick and doesnt have the right to be knighted, double standards

[nex_man]

Nah, the guy thinks he's some sort of hero, but he's not:


Indeed, those who purchase disbelief [in exchange] for faith - never will they harm Allah at all, and for them is a painful punishment.

And let not those who disbelieve ever think that [because] We extend their time [of enjoyment] it is better for them. We only extend it for them so that they may increase in sin, and for them is a humiliating punishment.


[Qur'an 3: 177-8]

[jus_me]

the honours list means fuck all now anyway, the queen just gives it to celebs who see their stars fading away, nobody who really deserves it gets it.

she should either scrap it totally or start doing her research, its not like she has any other real work to be doing.

[zai_alam]

the honours list means fuck all now anyway, the queen just gives it to celebs who see their stars fading away, nobody who really deserves it gets it.

she should either scrap it totally or start doing her research, its not like she has any other real work to be doing.

Waving at people accurately takes a lot of time, skill and dedication you know! :squint:

http://images.usatoday.com/life/gallery/queen/wave.jpg

[Space-Cowboy]

Waving at people accurately takes a lot of time, skill and dedication you know! :squint:

http://images.usatoday.com/life/gallery/queen/wave.jpg


She scares me :sniff:

[minty~ice~cold]

I recently read Midnight's Children, not bad. I liked it. Good for him, being knight-edd. This dude I know, his fave author is Salman Rushdie.. he's probs excited or something. :|

[foreverconfused]

yes...however who within society decides what is acceptable and what is unacceptable?? - even judging free speech is entirely subjective...

I personally think there should be NO censorship of speech on religious topics. People can criticize as much as they like. And if some people disagree, it's up to them to convince the public of their view and what is "correct".

I believe free discussion on religion is absolutely necessary. Writings such as those of Rushdie should not be censored. Censorship on topics like religion only ends in disaster. Horrible idea.

P.S. Excuse the tone. I just feel passionate about this.

[Space-Cowboy]

I personally think there should be NO censorship of speech on religious topics. People can criticize as much as they like. And if some people disagree, it's up to them to convince the public of their view and what is "correct".

I believe free discussion on religion is absolutely necessary. Writings such as those of Rushdie should not be censored. Censorship on topics like religion only ends in disaster. Horrible idea.

P.S. Excuse the tone. I just feel passionate about this.

I think there should be a minimum level of censorship. And that level is includes those speeches in which people twist scriptures into hateful agendas of violence and such. I certainly wouldn't want guys like Bin Laden or Jerry Falwell [now deceased] to have complete free reign to spout whatever bullshit they wanted.... although in the case of the latter, he did anyway..

[sexxichic2envy]

http://a69.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/64/l_4758157f1a847fc5793066575ce4ef54.jpg

[Space-Cowboy]

http://a69.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/64/l_4758157f1a847fc5793066575ce4ef54.jpg


He looks so sexy :Oops:

[sexxichic2envy]

He looks so sexy :Oops:
:kekeke: werdddd up

that's from my trip to medieval times last weekend.

[nayeemx33]

How does he do it? :blink:

The guy is married to Padma Lakshmi and becomes knighted :neutral:

[Space-Cowboy]

:kekeke: werdddd up

that's from my trip to medieval times last weekend.

Come again? :weirdfac: :sarb:

[foreverconfused]

I think there should be a minimum level of censorship. And that level is includes those speeches in which people twist scriptures into hateful agendas of violence and such. I certainly wouldn't want guys like Bin Laden or Jerry Falwell [now deceased] to have complete free reign to spout whatever bullshit they wanted.... although in the case of the latter, he did anyway..

I disagree. If someone thinks certain religious verses promote violence, they should say so. If they are wrong and there is open discussion, ultimately truth will prevail because someone will be able to provide evidence that those verses are peaceful.

For centuries, openly opposing religion was outlawed and also dangerous. Where did that get us? Free speech on these topics is absolutely necessary for progress to occur and for ideas to flow freely. If this allows BinLaden to spew bullshit, so be it. I am confident that his claims are ridiculous enough that they will be dismissed by most rational people, provided free speech is allowed so that opposing arguments may be heard.

The only kind of speech that should be disallowed (IMO) is the kind that involves some hate crime. ie - Bin Laden saying "Kill all non-Muslims".

[Space-Cowboy]

I disagree. If someone thinks certain religious verses promote violence, they should say so. If they are wrong and there is open discussion, ultimately truth will prevail because someone will be able to provide evidence that those verses are peaceful.

For centuries, openly opposing religion was outlawed and also dangerous. Where did that get us? Free speech on these topics is absolutely necessary for progress to occur and for ideas to flow freely. If this allows BinLaden to spew bullshit, so be it. I am confident that his claims are ridiculous enough that they will be dismissed by most rational people, provided free speech is allowed so that opposing arguments may be heard.

The only kind of speech that should be disallowed (IMO) is the kind that involves some hate crime. ie - Bin Laden saying "Kill all non-Muslims".

That's the point I was making ;) I agree with you. :p

[desi_uk]

I personally think there should be NO censorship of speech on religious topics. People can criticize as much as they like. And if some people disagree, it's up to them to convince the public of their view and what is "correct".

I believe free discussion on religion is absolutely necessary. Writings such as those of Rushdie should not be censored. Censorship on topics like religion only ends in disaster. Horrible idea.

P.S. Excuse the tone. I just feel passionate about this.
If that the case then individuals should also have the right to disgaree with secularism but somehow i think if someone wrote a book abouth them criticising them they will prob be locked up in guantanamo bay

[Space-Cowboy]

If that the case then individuals should also have the right to disgaree with secularism but somehow i think if someone wrote a book abouth them criticising them they will prob be locked up in guantanamo bay


You can't get "locked up" for disagreeing with secularism..... Right wing evangelicals take stands against it in various ways all the time.

[Pompeii]

Lol, this prick gets knighted because of outstanding service to literature? Gotta be having a laugh, I could probably name 1001 authors that have made actual contributions to literature instead of gaining celebrity status by creating one piece of, controversial, literature. He perhaps has one or two books that are worthy of reading, one being Fury, hardly a contribution to literature. However, what he should be knighted for is his ability to survive controversy. Rushdie you pricKKK.

[jumpn jza]

I personally think there should be NO censorship of speech on religious topics. People can criticize as much as they like. And if some people disagree, it's up to them to convince the public of their view and what is "correct".

I believe free discussion on religion is absolutely necessary. Writings such as those of Rushdie should not be censored. Censorship on topics like religion only ends in disaster. Horrible idea.

P.S. Excuse the tone. I just feel passionate about this.

i feel the same way as you do...

[desi_uk]

Lol, this prick gets knighted because of outstanding service to literature? Gotta be having a laugh, I could probably name 1001 authors that have made actual contributions to literature instead of gaining celebrity status by creating one piece of, controversial, literature. He perhaps has one or two books that are worthy of reading, one being Fury, hardly a contribution to literature. However, what he should be knighted for is his ability to survive controversy. Rushdie you pricKKK.
agreed hes a prick hes just another terrorist extremist with the Queen backing his ass up now im on the topic shes a bitch too

[Pompeii]

agreed hes a prick hes just another terrorist extremist with the Queen backing his ass up now im on the topic shes a bitch too

O-K, I don't think we see him as a prick for the same reasons.

[jumpn jza]

If that the case then individuals should also have the right to disgaree with secularism but somehow i think if someone wrote a book abouth them criticising them they will prob be locked up in guantanamo bay

How can anyone disagree with secularism in a nation full of people from various faiths?? - All secularism is trying to achieve is to promote the idea that the government does not claim or support one religious viewpoint or any religious viewpoint, it is indifferent.

Not many countries out there are purely secular, here in Australia, we swear on the bible (im against doing so...lol jesus also said that people shouldn't make extravagant vows as such)

All secularism is about is that the nation itself will be indifferent to 'religion'- therefore it has an entirely objective approach to it. And i think that those who are against secularism in a multifaith society are themselves elitist - like some imam that called for Sharia law here in Australia to save us from the hellfire :neutral: ...(would i want to censor such people - no)...

I dont think people would get locked up for preaching against a secular state - thats just playing the victim card...

btw...what do u think of Ayatollah Khomeini ??

[jumpn jza]

agreed hes a prick hes just another terrorist extremist with the Queen backing his ass up now im on the topic shes a bitch too

Rushdie is a terrorist?

[TheDude]

the queen lol

the brits lol

[Space-Cowboy]

the queen lol

the brits lol



Canadians? :mrhappy:

[soladylike]

Canadians? :mrhappy:

So yesterday my friend told me that for safety reasons, when I visit other countries, I should never reveal my American identity; that I should say I'm Canadian.
Otherwise they'd fucking kill me :Ohno:

[TheDude]

So yesterday my friend told me that for safety reasons, when I visit other countries, I should never reveal my American identity; that I should say I'm Canadian.
Otherwise they'd fucking kill me :Ohno:

no one would believe that you are american, you ninja. just go durka durka alala jihaaaaaaaaad and you'll be fine.

[soladylike]

no one would believe that you are american, you ninja. just go durka durka alala jihaaaaaaaaad and you'll be fine.

What's "durka durka alala"?
Oh and suck on my non existant balls, yeah? K thanx.

[TheDude]

What's "durka durka alala"?
Oh and suck on my non existant balls, yeah? K thanx.

you are so sheltered, cuz. :hug: :kiss: :grope: :PokeIDB:

[soladylike]

you are so sheltered, cuz. :hug: :kiss: :grope: :PokeIDB:

I have diarrhea at the moment so pokeIDB at your discretion :o

[TheDude]

I have diarrhea at the moment so pokeIDB at your discretion :o

skeet skeet skeeeet

[nayeemx33]

I have diarrhea at the moment so pokeIDB at your discretion :o

:buttsex:

[soladylike]

Oh you horny maggots :no:

[TheDude]

Oh you horny maggots :no:

:kama:

[nayeemx33]

:69:

[Space-Cowboy]

So yesterday my friend told me that for safety reasons, when I visit other countries, I should never reveal my American identity; that I should say I'm Canadian.
Otherwise they'd fucking kill me :Ohno:

... on the otherhand, if you tell them you're Canadian, they'll laugh at you..... :(

[Space-Cowboy]

What have you people done to my thread? :no:

[soladylike]

... on the otherhand, if you tell them you're Canadian, they'll laugh at you..... :(

Being Muslim, I'm fucked either way :cheers:
Unless...I go to the villages in Romania.

[nayeemx33]

Being Muslim, I'm fucked either way :cheers:
Unless...I go to the villages in Romania.

:buttsex:

[Space-Cowboy]

Being Muslim, I'm fucked either way :cheers:
Unless...I go to the villages in Romania.


Romanian girls :yum:



:buttsex:

Anal sex is forbidden in this thread. :arrow:

[nayeemx33]

Romanian girls :yum:





Anal sex is forbidden in this thread. :arrow:

Go back where you came from :arrow:
http://forums.ratedesi.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32

[Space-Cowboy]

Go back where you came from :arrow:
http://forums.ratedesi.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32


http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~sedwards/photos/taiwan2004/.slide_20040725-2021_No_Dice_Sign.jpg

NO DICE

[zarakhanQT]

just coz a woman wears revealing clothing doesnt make her a whore...in fact, i believe all people have the right to walk around naked...:D

And what makes a woman a "whore"?? - sleeping with many men and dressing provocatively?? - that doesnt make her a whore - it makes her "sexually confidant" - and i think Salman Rushdie would have no problem raising his daughters to be "sexually confident"...thats thats respectable

is she sexually confident when she gets raped? women dressing like that ask for trouble. Don't agree? how else do you explaim the ever increasing high number of rape statistics. above all, does your mother or sister dress like that? are they "sexually confident" too?

[zarakhanQT]

So why does he have a problem with women who want to cover themselves.Its a freeworld everyone has the right to dress as they wish.His daughters can walk naked ours will cover themselves.Why does he have a problem with that?

simply because he is an arrogant pig, who needs his head knocking. everybody has the right to dress as they please. he just can't handle the passion muslims have for their religion, and the ever increasing number of muslims in the world. he sees us as a threat, thats all.

[jumpn jza]

is she sexually confident when she gets raped? women dressing like that ask for trouble. Don't agree? how else do you explaim the ever increasing high number of rape statistics. above all, does your mother or sister dress like that? are they "sexually confident" too?

My point is that a woman has every right to dress provocatively without getting raped...thats human rights actually...

Rape is never a woman's fault, is is the fault of the rapist...so dont blame rape stats on women, blame it on the rapists...

Dont talk about my family, thats irrelevant to what im trying to say...

btw...what do u think of Ayatollah Khomeini??

[zarakhanQT]

My point is that a woman has every right to dress provocatively without getting raped...thats human rights actually...

Rape is never a woman's fault, is is the fault of the rapist...so dont blame rape stats on women, blame it on the rapists...

Dont talk about my family, thats irrelevant to what im trying to say...

btw...what do u think of Ayatollah Khomeini??

why dress provocatively?? that's not going to lead to anything but trouble. where do rapists get these ideas from? they don't just wake up 1 day and think, ooooh im going to randomly have sex with women today. it's a build up of events, and women dressing like sluts is ofcourse a huge issue! compare the statistics of america where women get attacked to that of a muslim country, you will find a huge difference within the statistics, quite simplly they speak for them self.

I made reference to your family for you to use your brain and relate to the what im saying, so it is hugely relevant. Ofcourse, you found it offensive. So im right, and ofcourse you wouldn't like it. who would?

[Mr Teeny]

Never read any of Rushdie's books but his wife is hot.

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/model/padma-lakshmi/pictures/padma-lakshmi-picture-5.jpg

[Space-Cowboy]

is she sexually confident when she gets raped? women dressing like that ask for trouble. Don't agree? how else do you explaim the ever increasing high number of rape statistics. above all, does your mother or sister dress like that? are they "sexually confident" too?


Go check the stats for most nudist colonies.... the crime rates are quite low... so that debunks your claim.


And the whole "she was asking for it" line is quite ridiculously illogical at best.




But I do agree with you, Rushdie's comments were definitely out of line.

[zarakhanQT]

Go check the stats for most nudist colonies.... the crime rates are quite low... so that debunks your claim.


And the whole "she was asking for it" line is quite ridiculously illogical at best.




But I do agree with you, Rushdie's comments were definitely out of line.

crime rates? we are not making reference to a minority of nudist colonies. 'debunking' what I have said cannot be justified by making reference to a small minority to that in comparison with the rest of the world. So get with it...

Modesty in dressing is a great quality to have. Women of nowadays need to operate modesty at its best, but sadly this isn't the case.

Rushdie's comments were ofcourse deliberate, just to spark a reaction. Quite simply, he's just an idiot.

Anyway. enough talking...

[foreverconfused]

why dress provocatively?? that's not going to lead to anything but trouble. where do rapists get these ideas from? they don't just wake up 1 day and think, ooooh im going to randomly have sex with women today. it's a build up of events, and women dressing like sluts is ofcourse a huge issue! compare the statistics of america where women get attacked to that of a muslim country, you will find a huge difference within the statistics, quite simplly they speak for them self.

I made reference to your family for you to use your brain and relate to the what im saying, so it is hugely relevant. Ofcourse, you found it offensive. So im right, and ofcourse you wouldn't like it. who would?

stfu, you backward little prick.

Regardless of how a woman is dressed, no one has the right to abuse her. End of story.

Statistics show that most rape victims are NOT raped because of the way they were dressed. Most often they are raped by people they know who have the most opportunity to take advantage of them. Only you're such a brainwashed, misinformed idiot, this probably never occurred to you.

[zarakhanQT]

stfu, you backward little prick.

Regardless of how a woman is dressed, no one has the right to abuse her. End of story.

Statistics show that most rape victims are NOT raped because of the way they were dressed. Most often they are raped by people they know who have the most opportunity to take advantage of them. Only you're such a brainwashed, misinformed idiot, this probably never occurred to you.


you're an uneducated fool. no other way to describe you. well bring out these so called statistics then? do you want to know where and when most of these things happen? when women go clubbing, when they get drunk and have no sense of what they are doing! dress like that, you're asking for trouble, simple.

and beholding an arguement doesn't mean that you stoop to low levels by name calling other. stop being so offended by what im saying and look out of your stupid box for once, you confused excuse of a human.

[foreverconfused]

you're an uneducated fool. no other way to describe you. well bring out these so called statistics then? do you want to know where and when most of these things happen? when women go clubbing, when they get drunk and have no sense of what they are doing! dress like that, you're asking for trouble, simple.

and beholding an arguement doesn't mean that you stoop to low levels by name calling other. stop being so offended by what im saying and look out of your stupid box for once.

lol, I'd like to see the education you have, because as far as I know, everything you've said contradicts what has been found through psychological studies on rapists and rape victims. If anything, you are the uneducated fool.

Backward idiots like you who BLAME rape victims are one of the reasons why so many rape victims in Desi countries are reluctant to report these crimes.

A woman has the right to dress provocatively without getting raped. We aren't living in Saudi Arabia, where we might get stoned for doing so.

It is a fact that most victims are raped by people they know. Little correlation has been found between rape and the amount of clothing the victim was wearing prior to the event.

[TheDude]

Never read any of Rushdie's books but his wife is hot.

i hate the way she talks and the way she enunciates words. annoying as fuck.

[TheDude]

do you want to know where and when most of these things happen? when women go clubbing, when they get drunk and have no sense of what they are doing! dress like that, you're asking for trouble, simple.

wrong, cuz. most of this shit doesn't happen in clubs or in dark alleys, and most of em are not committed by some stranger.

[foreverconfused]

You may value modesty (the Islamic fundamentalist's definition of it, I mean).

Don't expect everyone else to value it too, especially when the reasons you provide for doing so are baseless.

[TheDude]

from the national center for victims of crime (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32306)

77% of completed rapes are committed by non-strangers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).

When most people think of rape, they visualize an unknown lunatic violently dragging a defenseless person into a dark alley. This is a very inaccurate portrayal. Almost four out of five rapes are committed by attackers who knew or recognized their victims (National Center for Victims of Crime & Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992).

Many myths incorrectly characterize rape victims as "sexually loose" individuals who are "asking for it." On the contrary, victims of acquaintance rape are victims of violence and domination.

[TheDude]

from http://www.pcar.org/about_sa/faqs_sa.html

Of the over 247,000 women raped or sexually assaulted during 2002, 67% identified the perpetrator as a nonstranger.

Rennison, Callie. August 2003. "Criminal Victimization, 2002." National Criminal Victimization Survey. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Nearly 6 out of 10 rape/sexual assault incidents occurred in the victim’s home or at the home of a friend, relative or neighbor.

Greenfeld, Lawrence. Sex Offenses and Offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, February 1997

[zarakhanQT]

lol, I'd like to see the education you have, because as far as I know, everything you've said contradicts what has been found through psychological studies on rapists and rape victims. If anything, you are the uneducated fool.

Backward idiots like you who BLAME rape victims are one of the reasons why so many rape victims in Desi countries are reluctant to report these crimes.

A woman has the right to dress provocatively without getting raped. We aren't living in Saudi Arabia, where we might get stoned for doing so.

It is a fact that most victims are raped by people they know. Little correlation has been found between rape and the amount of clothing the victim was wearing prior to the event.


women who dress in a revealing way ask for trouble then cry when it happens. enforce the stoning law in America. let's see what happens. I guarantee it will bring down the statistics. Reluctancy to report crimes has no relation with people who agree with the statement that women who dress disgustingly revealing outside their homes, but is infact due to the policing system of the countries so get ur facts right.

Correlation has clearly been found as I have explained. those with such social lives that involve heavily clubbing and drinking are often sought into rape. If modesty was in place with these women, they wouldnt need to dress like that and ask for trouble.

[cutenoreen]

Never read any of Rushdie's books but his wife is hot.

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/model/padma-lakshmi/pictures/padma-lakshmi-picture-5.jpg

Isn't that Padma Lakshmi..? What a strange couple.

[foreverconfused]

women who dress in a revealing way ask for trouble then cry when it happens. enforce the stoning law in America. let's see what happens. I guarantee it will bring down the statistics. Reluctancy to report crimes has no relation with people who agree with the statement that women who dress disgustingly revealing outside their homes, but is infact due to the policing system of the countries so get ur facts right.

Correlation has clearly been found as I have explained. those with such social lives that involve heavily clubbing and drinking are often sought into rape. If modesty was in place with these women, they wouldnt need to dress like that and ask for trouble.


If you make such claims, you better back them up with legitimate evidence (studies, etc) with which most psychologists and researchers don't find fault.

And you won't be able to because most researchers don't agree, and have made conclusions opposite to what you're suggesting.

[TheDude]

women who dress in a revealing way ask for trouble then cry when it happens. enforce the stoning law in America. let's see what happens. I guarantee it will bring down the statistics. Reluctancy to report crimes has no relation with people who agree with the statement that women who dress disgustingly revealing outside their homes, but is infact due to the policing system of the countries so get ur facts right.

Correlation has clearly been found as I have explained. those with such social lives that involve heavily clubbing and drinking are often sought into rape. If modesty was in place with these women, they wouldnt need to dress like that and ask for trouble.

hey, stop spewing bs. i just posted some data that clearly contradicts what you are saying.

[TheDude]

from the national center for victims of crime (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32306)

77% of completed rapes are committed by non-strangers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).

When most people think of rape, they visualize an unknown lunatic violently dragging a defenseless person into a dark alley. This is a very inaccurate portrayal. Almost four out of five rapes are committed by attackers who knew or recognized their victims (National Center for Victims of Crime & Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992).

Many myths incorrectly characterize rape victims as "sexually loose" individuals who are "asking for it." On the contrary, victims of acquaintance rape are victims of violence and domination.

[TheDude]

from http://www.pcar.org/about_sa/faqs_sa.html

Of the over 247,000 women raped or sexually assaulted during 2002, 67% identified the perpetrator as a nonstranger.

Rennison, Callie. August 2003. "Criminal Victimization, 2002." National Criminal Victimization Survey. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Nearly 6 out of 10 rape/sexual assault incidents occurred in the victim’s home or at the home of a friend, relative or neighbor.

Greenfeld, Lawrence. Sex Offenses and Offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, February 1997

[TheDude]

so no, most rapes dont happen because the women dress slutty, and no, most rapes dont happen when women go clubbing.

check your facts, holmes.

[TheDude]

aunt noreen, you wanna talk some sense into this paki girl's head?

[cutenoreen]

aunt noreen, you wanna talk some sense into this paki girl's head?

Why bother?

[jumpn jza]

why dress provocatively?? that's not going to lead to anything but trouble. where do rapists get these ideas from? they don't just wake up 1 day and think, ooooh im going to randomly have sex with women today. it's a build up of events, and women dressing like sluts is ofcourse a huge issue! compare the statistics of america where women get attacked to that of a muslim country, you will find a huge difference within the statistics, quite simplly they speak for them self.

I made reference to your family for you to use your brain and relate to the what im saying, so it is hugely relevant. Ofcourse, you found it offensive. So im right, and ofcourse you wouldn't like it. who would?

ok, i'll let you have that then...suppose it is true that rape statistics are lower in muslim countries, my point is that a woman has the RIGHT to dress provocatively WITHOUT being raped....it is a human right, and the blame lies entirely with the rapist...NOT with the woman

And how do u define slutty clothing?? - what i regard as being acceptable may be regarded by u as being totally UNacceptable...where do u draw the line?? - to even use the phrase "dressing like sluts" is subjective and has prejudices of its own dont you think??

A good example is when two men in Sydney raped a woman and then claimed that it was her fault becasue she was dressing provocatively (as if thats some kind of excuse) but the truth is that the woman was dressing provocatively from the perspective of the rapists who happened to be pakistani muslims...

How do you define "slutty appearance"?? - in my opinion, if males within society are raised around women who expose quite a lot of skin then they WONT be raised to see such clothing as "slutty" and they will not have the primal compulsion to commit rape...why?? - because it becomes the norm for women to dress like that...

And lemme say something about some of these so called "muslim countries" (eg. saudi, nigeria) in some of them, if a woman was raped in an environment full of non-mehram men - then the fault lies with her...and there are multiple cases to illustrate these Sharia law loopholes which marginalize women in a rape case...

and let me reiterate...a woman has the RIGHT to dress provocatively WITHOUT being raped...

[foreverconfused]

^let's see how many times you have to post that before she finally understands

[jumpn jza]

you're an uneducated fool. no other way to describe you. well bring out these so called statistics then? do you want to know where and when most of these things happen? when women go clubbing, when they get drunk and have no sense of what they are doing! dress like that, you're asking for trouble, simple.


Again, women have the right to go clubbing, get drunk and NOT get raped...the fault lies with the rapist NOT with the victim...no woman should have to sacrafice her clubbing/drinking lifestyle because some savage piece of shit is looking to rape a woman...

[TheDude]

no woman should have to sacrafice her clubbing/drinking lifestyle because some savage piece of shit is looking to rape a woman...

hey, its not rape if she's wearing hijab, only if she's wearing a skirt :dunno:

[jumpn jza]

^let's see how many times you have to post that before she finally understands

thats a she ....omfg :neutral: ...that is strange

[TheDude]

thats a she ....omfg :neutral: ...that is strange

i'd think the QT in zarakhanQT is a dead giveaway but thats just me :dunno:

[cutenoreen]

thats a she ....omfg :neutral: ...that is strange

Zara = a girl's name.

[TheDude]

Zara = a girl's name.

Location: Manchestaa

that explains it.

another british paki. :no:

[jumpn jza]

i'd think the QT in zarakhanQT is a dead giveaway but thats just me :dunno:

ohh ok....didnt really read it properly...i just skimmed over it...lol...i actually read it as one word...zarakhan...

[cutenoreen]

Location: Manchestaa

that explains it.

another british paki. :no:


Individuals who share the same opinions as her obviously live sheltered lives. There's no point trying to talk any sort of 'sense' into these... people.

[TheDude]

Individuals who share the same opinions as her obviously live sheltered lives. There's no point trying to talk any sort of 'sense' into these... people.

yeah i guess :dunno:

[KurtaPyjama]

Some interesting points.... Just my personal opinion, but if you think about it; the people that were pissed off at him played right into his hands. He's only popular because there were so many that gave him the knee jerk reaction that he was looking for. In effect, if people hadn't given him said 'fuel', much in the same way that one might ignore a forum troll and not give him the attention he's looking for; he might very likely have been a nobody today instead of the world celeb that he is...

LOL.

i think this post is pretty representative of most of the tripe in this thread.

Salman Rushdie's second novel won the Booker of Bookers prize. :idea:

[TheDude]

LOL.

i think this post is pretty representative of most of the tripe in this thread.

Salman Rushdie's second novel won the Booker of Bookers prize. :idea:

:werd:

[foreverconfused]

ohh ok....didnt really read it properly...i just skimmed over it...lol...i actually read it as one word...zarakhan...

lol, I did that too and assumed it was a guy, before I read her what her username said.

[jumpn jza]

lol, I did that too and assumed it was a guy, before I read her what her username said.

i thought it was guy coz of the stuff she said...

[Mr Teeny]

Isn't that Padma Lakshmi..? What a strange couple.

Ya. Very weird. He's about 25 years older than her

[soladylike]

Rape is about power. Not sexuality.
Reason rape stats are low in Muslim countries is probably 'cause the girl would rather slit her wrists and die than report it. No report of rape, no stats. Just like the stats for acquaintance rape is blurry here.

[foreverconfused]

i thought it was guy coz of the stuff she said...

yeah, this really doesn't sound like it's from a girl. :wtf:

is she sexually confident when she gets raped? women dressing like that ask for trouble. Don't agree? how else do you explaim the ever increasing high number of rape statistics. above all, does your mother or sister dress like that? are they "sexually confident" too?

[TheDude]

Rape is about power. Not sexuality.
Reason rape stats are low in Muslim countries is probably 'cause the girl would rather slit her wrists and die than report it. No report of rape, no stats. Just like the stats for acquaintance rape is blurry here.

mmhmm. thats right, cuz.

[TheDude]

yeah, this really doesn't sound like it's from a girl. :wtf:

well paki girls have a lot of the male hormones in their bodies. no wonder she sounds like a guy there. hell, i'll bet she has a mustache too.

[foreverconfused]

well paki girls have a lot of the male hormones in their bodies. no wonder she sounds like a guy there. hell, i'll bet she has a mustache too.

:lol:

[jumpn jza]

btw...the nob that put a fatwa on him was Ayatollah Khomeini, This piece of shit wrote a book which says that its ok for men to have sex with animals...read

A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh"

:roflbow: :no:..

Who gets more controversy in the muslim world?? - a guy that writes fiction and alludes to the prophet..

[TheDude]

btw...the nob that put a fatwa on him was Ayatollah Khomeini, This piece of shit wrote a book which says that its ok for men to have sex with animals...read

Who gets more controversy in the muslim world?? - a guy that writes a fictional story...

thats not surprising, now is it? i posted that one thread about pakis and how they have sex with animals. iran is right on the pakistan border. its not surprising if they do too.

[jumpn jza]

thats not surprising, now is it? i posted that one thread about pakis and how they have sex with animals. iran is right on the pakistan border. its not surprising if they do too.

Its just the list of priorities...whats more contro - camel fucking vs fiction?!?!?1

:rolleyes:

[TheDude]

Its just the list of priorities...whats more contro - camel fucking vs fiction?!?!?1

:rolleyes:

well, i guess camel fucking makes the meat tender :dunno: so no controversy there.

[jumpn jza]

well, i guess camel fucking makes the meat tender :dunno: so no controversy there.

:rofl: ...new zealander men on sheep stations where known to boink sheep when they were away from their families for long periods of time...

[TheDude]

:rofl: ...new zealander men on sheep stations where known to boink sheep when they were away from their families for long periods of time...

:rofl: fuckin kiwis

[jumpn jza]

:rofl: fuckin kiwis

thats why we make "velcro glove" jokes about em...

"ayy look its a kiwi, wheres the velcro gloves mate??"

[Walktheline]

:rofl: fuckin kiwis

bill :sniff:

[nayeemx33]

:rofl: fuckin kiwis

Why do you think about Rushdie?

[Space-Cowboy]

LOL.

i think this post is pretty representative of most of the tripe in this thread.

Salman Rushdie's second novel won the Booker of Bookers prize. :idea:


Wha?

[bad_cheque]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6756149.stm



:-s
If he is so secular then why is accepting an honour from a country that has a state religion?




:idea:

[TheDude]

Why do you think about Rushdie?

he scored big time with that chick, but i dont know how he does it... the way she talks is fucking annoying.

[foreverconfused]

Wha?

:dunno: He does have a point. His work prior to the publication of The Satanic verses was highly acclaimed.

[nayeemx33]

he scored big time with that chick, but i dont know how he does it... the way she talks is fucking annoying.

How rich is he?


Anyways
I was talking about his books. Do you like them?

[TheDude]

How rich is he?


Anyways
I was talking about his books. Do you like them?

i dont read books. im a balla.

[nayeemx33]

i dont read books. im a balla.

You're cute. :Oops:

[Space-Cowboy]

Anyway just because he won a prize doesn't make him any less of a seeker of the 'knee jerk' reaction in Satanic Verses. Whatever sells.

[bad_cheque]

Didn't anyone notice my clever little post here?





:D

[Space-Cowboy]

:dunno: He does have a point. His work prior to the publication of The Satanic verses was highly acclaimed.


Well alright fine saying 'nobody' was a stretch but honestly he became that much more of a world celeb AFTER Satanic Verses.

[foreverconfused]

Didn't anyone notice my clever little post here?





:D

lol, well I think jumpn_jza's said it quite nicely:

if i was him i would have told the queen to shove the knighthood up her ass and that i dont need her approval...that would be cool...

[bad_cheque]

lol, well I think jumpn_jza's said it quite nicely:
But he didn't bring out the dichotomy of the situation like I did.


I think I deserve a cookie. :D

[nayeemx33]

But he didn't bring out the dichotomy of the situation like I did.


I think I deserve a cookie. :D

You get a :hug:

[bad_cheque]

You get a :hug:
Lately I was feeling kind of ignored by you.


I am so happy :D

[KurtaPyjama]

Anyway just because he won a prize doesn't make him any less of a seeker of the 'knee jerk' reaction in Satanic Verses. Whatever sells.

Huh? My point was that he was already a 'star'.

Maybe you should read his book and learn more about the author before you cast any aspersions with regards to his professional character. :idea:

[Space-Cowboy]

Huh? My point was that he was already a 'star'.

Maybe you should read his book and learn more about the author before you cast any aspersions with regards to his professional character. :idea:


I understand, I addressed that a few posts after..

[paki_canadian20]

meh hes a douchebag

[bad_cheque]

The vast majority of rapists were usually sexually abused themselves (or abused in other ways during childhood), hence which leads them to continue the cycle. Being abused during your childhood is definitely a more critical cause that people should look at, instead of wondering how a woman was dressed or what she was doing at the time of a rape. Just like how the sons and grandsons of wife-beaters become wife-beaters themselves, and the progeny of alcoholics continue to become alcoholics just like their ancestors. Your childhood psyche can significantly internalize what happens to you, and hence you may repeat the behavior as an adult.

Everything else I've wanted to say was said earlier.
It has been theorized that rape is actually an evolutionary response. I am not sure that is term. Basically, it is an evolved behaviour that came about in the need to survive. So I am not sure child abuse is the most important factor.

Also this theory can be extended to say that provocative dressing can increase the chances for rape to occur.

I am not defending rape at all here.

[KurtaPyjama]

I understand, I addressed that a few posts after..

Okay. But, the meaningfulness of this discussion is contingent upon an understanding of the true nature of the book itself. The writing, man. The writing. None of this speculation is meaningful unless u've read the book. :idea:

[bad_cheque]

Either way, most rapists and child molesters said they were sexually abused as a child. Some said they indirectly learned from the experience that it was okay to do that to others, and they liked how they were in power compared to how the other person was in power and they were submissive during their rape/molestation experience.
Is that based on any data?

Is it US-specific data or from all over the world?

I think there is a tendency among Americans to blame their failings on something that happened in their childhood (a notion very much encouraged by psychologists here)

[Space-Cowboy]

Okay. But, the meaningfulness of this discussion is contingent upon an understanding of the true nature of the book itself. The writing, man. The writing. None of this speculation is meaningful unless u've read the book. :idea:



Good point. I'll read Midnight's Children.

[KurtaPyjama]

Good point. I'll read Midnight's Children.

Midnight's Children is incredible, but as far as this discussion goes, perhaps you might want to read Satanic Verses instead of throwing around speculation. :bhapi:

[Space-Cowboy]

Midnight's Children is incredible, but as far as this discussion goes, perhaps you might want to read Satanic Verses instead of throwing around speculation. :bhapi:

:salut:
Fair enough I will.... I wanna get through reading my current book first..

[bad_cheque]

Midnight's Children is incredible, but as far as this discussion goes, perhaps you might want to read Satanic Verses instead of throwing around speculation. :bhapi:
Have you read Naipaul?

How does Rushdie compare to him? I have never read anything by Rushdie. What do you recommend?


.

[bad_cheque]

I'm not sure if it's US-specific data, but it's based on case study backgrounds of the offender and you can find offenders being interviewed.

I think bringing up childhood experiences is just a way to help understand one's behavior. Don't you think your environment and your life experiences help shape how you become later on?

I don't see it as "blaming", because the offender isn't going to get away with his or her crime even if they say "Oh I was abused too as a child."
I will start with the last contention. I think it matters a lot. It softens up the jury. Also things like temporary insanity is accepted and leads to reduced sentence (that's the sense I get though I have no evidence for that.)

I barely remember any such experiences in my childhood that changed me. My teenage wasn't great probably because I made it bad and I can say it has affected me in some ways. But even recent experiences affect me. What's so special about childhood?

I would love to see what a psychologist from say the UK or India says about this. Are there any here? :|

[jumpn jza]

Why do you think about Rushdie?'

Haven't read any of his stuff, but i have a general soft spot for those that poke fun at religion - i wil get to reading his book...i read the outline on wiki and it seems funny and interesting...

[jumpn jza]

The vast majority of rapists were usually sexually abused themselves (or abused in other ways during childhood), hence which leads them to continue the cycle. Being abused during your childhood is definitely a more critical cause that people should look at, instead of wondering how a woman was dressed or what she was doing at the time of a rape. Just like how the sons and grandsons of wife-beaters become wife-beaters themselves, and the progeny of alcoholics continue to become alcoholics just like their ancestors. Your childhood psyche can significantly internalize what happens to you, and hence you may repeat the behavior as an adult.

Everything else I've wanted to say was said earlier.

nicely put...i like reading your posts

I also believe that societies that have had their women raped by colonizers are more likely to produce offspring stuck in a cycle of mysogyny and rape...

My grandad was an alcoholic and i enjoy my drinking...maybe i should watch out...:neutral:

[bad_cheque]

nicely put...i like reading your posts

I also believe that societies that have had their women raped by colonizers are more likely to produce offspring stuck in a cycle of mysogyny and rape...

My grandad was an alcoholic and i enjoy my drinking...maybe i should watch out...:neutral:
You should watch out buddy.

I don't know anyone in my family who drinks but I have an addictive personality. So for reasons of habit, tradition and most importantly my tendency to take to something like crazy, I am keeping away from the drink. But I think it makes me look like a stiff-necked guy. Oh well....

Yeah Kama posts quality stuff.

[jumpn jza]

It has been theorized that rape is actually an evolutionary response. I am not sure that is term. Basically, it is an evolved behaviour that came about in the need to survive. So I am not sure child abuse is the most important factor.

Also this theory can be extended to say that provocative dressing can increase the chances for rape to occur.

I am not defending rape at all here.

now athiests have an excuse to rape...they can defend themselves by yelling "its evolution's fault"...and backward morons who claim to be muslim can yell "it's the woman's fault coz of the way she dressed"...

in the end we all now the fault lies with the rapist...

reminds of Sheik al Hilaly's comment (head mufti of Australia) that women who dont wear a hijab are like uncovered pieces of meat...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sexist-sheik-should-be-deported-goward/2006/10/26/1161749218913.html

[jumpn jza]

You should watch out buddy.

I don't know anyone in my family who drinks but I have an addictive personality. So for reasons of habit, tradition and most importantly my tendency to take to something like crazy, I am keeping away from the drink. But I think it makes me look like a stiff-necked guy. Oh well....

Yeah Kama posts quality stuff.

yeh...i enjoy my drink i really do...i get hammered at uni every week...doesnt make me an alco yet...i dont crave alcohol..

[bad_cheque]

yeh...i enjoy my drink i really do...i get hammered at uni every week...doesnt make me an alco yet...i dont crave alcohol..
They say that people who can stand their alcohol when they are young have a higher risk of becoming alcoholics at a later time.


But I am not being a killjoy here. Honest.

[jumpn jza]

lol I didn't say EVERYBODY has the chance of becoming like that. I'm just saying there's a frequent pattern observed, or that people have higher chances...If you really put your mind to something though, you can change yourself.

i dont think im at risk yet...when i start shaking coz i havent had a drink..then i'll worry...

[bad_cheque]

I think UKers are on the same par with Western theorists. :dunno:

Yeah of course, later experiences can affect you too, but at least you're old enough to realize why something is happening, what are the consequences, etc.

When you're a kid, you don't know any better. :dunno: I remember a four-year old asking me "I thought all husbands hit their wives" (because she grew up in an abusive household). Would any adult ask such a question? No.
I think there are subtle differences in the treatment of sociology, psychology etc between the US and the UK.

I know about this for sure about sociology.

If hitting wives is culturally acceptable, then even adults in such cultures won't question it. Right?

[TheDude]

why do muslims love to talk about rape? horny bastards.

why are you so full of hate? :no:

[TheDude]

Except for TheDude.

:shhh: dont say my name, or your guy might get jealous :kekeke:

[TheDude]

Okay that's enough now.

I'm going to call you TheBoob then.

now that he cant namesearch you because of that :kama: smiley, im guessing he namesearches me to see what you are up to. :kekeke:

[jumpn jza]

Women in muslim countries never get raped.........



cause the goats are the ones getting it up the ass.....

fucking sexy goats.

:rofl: ...

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/3900/040921goatxlw0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[TheDude]

Am I the only one that goes to clubs in jeans and a T-shirt? lol. Everyone on here thinks that "clubbers' wear like a mini skirt and halter 24/7.

didnt you say you live in europe. european clubs are gay.

[ispeakadatruth!!]

i dont know if shes; been discussed yet but can someone post a pic of padma lakshmi? she is toooooo beautiful for words :dribble:

[TheDude]

Why did you specifically choose this :kama: smiley to be named after me?

just because? :dunno:

[TheDude]

you are gay.

your mom's gay.