Isn’t this absolutely disgusting?
From the article:
‘If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet, then it is justified,’ Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq told the national assembly.
and:
‘If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?’ he said.
and, of course:
Dozens of students from hardline Islamic schools in the central Pakistani city of Multan chanted ‘Death to Rushdie, death to Britain’ and set a British flag on fire, witnesses said.
EDIT: PZ Myers comments on this as well.
Add to:
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Youre absolutely right here. The mindset that we’re no better than terrorists and that they deserve the same rights as us is nauseating. It’s these same disgusting politics that make it so that we can’t bomb mosques even if we know terrorist leaders are hiding in them “out of respect for their religion.” I wasn’t aware that the insurgency had any respect for us. I think they’ve made it pretty clear that they despise everything we are, and yet we’re still afraid of offending them. Its just plain sick, and you hit the nail on the head.
I know! This is ridiculous. Listening to BBC Radio 4 today, they had an interview with a Muslim, who was I believe, a Parliamentary Lord, and he basically said that Rushdie had blood on HIS hands, because of the way people reacted against what he had said! Oh, the air was blue with obscenities when I heard that. I cannot believe that this rubbish goes unchallenged, and yet criticism of religion by atheists is called militant! Has the whole world gone insane!
‘We demand an apology by the British government. Their action has hurt the sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims.’ And Rushdie was threatened with death! And yet the ’sentiments’ of a few people people is worth more than his life!
Man, you can really see wound up this has got me; I never normally use exclamation marks! Sorry to go on like this on your blog, but this thing has really got my goat.
Yeah how dare we consider anyone who has a different belief to be worthy of living. How dare we refrain from bombing mosques, after all muslims are not really our equals after all.. how dare we refrain or be chastised for aggressively invading nations around the world simply because the populations do not believe as the emporer does.. Give me a break.
The most telling quote in the article came from the Brits: [quote] ‘Sir Salman’s honour is richly deserved and the reasons for it are self-explanatory,’ said spokesman Aidan Liddle.[/quote]
The explanation was of course given earlier in the article: [quote]Salman Rushdie — whose only credibility is that he wrote a blasphemous book [/quote]
Mind you I have no sympathy for aggressors, regardless of their affiliation, but this whining because others dare to take offense at insults, (as well as mass murder etc) as if they were not valuable beings, as if they should not be respected as humans simply because of differences in belief, is profoundly arrogant and speaks only of the character of those who spew it.
Most of this of course refers to the comments made, rather than the blog entry, but Pedro, you too are guilty here of directly calling all muslims “suicide bombers” and implicitly calling them terrorists. As you know, I understand all religion to be evil, and the one of the two greatest harms to the individual on the planet or in history, but that knowledge does not cause me to pretend that simply having a religious belief is sufficient to make one a terrorist or suicide bomber. Thinking in this manner, this fundamentalist manner, is truly disgusting. It is this sort of dehumanizing practice which allows some to become convinced that they can kill off hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, Afghans, or anyone else at all. It is difficult to take seriously criticism of an attitude which is being expressed by the one making the criticism.
Maybe its just me, but I did not read into the quotes that Pedro posted the same things that you did TX. I agree that stereotyping is wrong, but I did not see in this case. Not one of the quotes indicated that all Muslims were suicide bombers, nor did Pedro suggest they were.
If you are suggesting that the only inference that could be taken from his choice of those quotes was that all Muslims are suicide bombers, I would like to know the basis of your reasoning.
As it is, Pedro, I agree that the sentiment expressed in the quotes is disgusting.
This reminds of several things I hate about religion.
1) Killing in the name of your God or Prophet is the best thing you can do.
2) Your God or Prophet is so important and great that if someone merely says something bad about him, they should die.
3) Religious leaders are so scared of any criticism of religion that will try to kill you if you publish any. I think it’s because they know they’re full of crap and don’t want anyone to find out.
TX: Jim is right. I never said or implied that all Muslims are terrorists or suicide bombers. Nor do I believe such a thing.
You may be referring to the post’s title, but it’s simply about the quote by the Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister, where he says that any eventual suicide bomber is “justified” because the fact that an honor was given to a “blasphemer” hurt his feelings.
People like that minister, and whoever else is going crazy about Rushdie’s knighthood, believe that they have some absolute “right not to be offended”, and that their relious beliefs must always be above criticism… or else. And they also believe that violence and murder are comparable to — and a proper response to — “hurt feelings”.
LOL!!!
The implication is undeniable and quite obvious. You assert “If you offend the kind, sensitive suicide bombers, YOU’RE the monster!””
You then quote the article which makes clear the FACT that Rushdie did in fact set out to and succeeded in offering what any rational person will recognize as nothing more than a simplistic, and simple minded insult to Islam, for whic he was granted a knighthood. You then go so far as to ridicule the very idea that this would bother anyone, and in response to the observation that Rushdie offended 1.5 million muslims, you called them “suicide bombers” and clearly implied that they were all terrorists.
So whether this was your intent or not, there can be no rational or reasonable doubt as to the necessary implications. The double standards are so clear as to be undeniable. That said, I am certainly willing to grant that this may well have been merely a hasty statement, but that does not change what is necessitated by the claim. So the claim that no implication is present is categorically and objectively false. Perhaps you mean to say that no INTENDED implication was present, but that is a very different claim.
[quote]where he says that any eventual suicide bomber is “justified” because the fact that an honor was given to a “blasphemer” hurt his feelings.[/quote]
If you are serious in this tactic, then you are being dishonest in not recognizing that he said quite clearly that he was speaking of the EMOTION of justification, not an objective standard of justification.
[quote]People like that minister, and whoever else is going crazy about Rushdie’s knighthood, believe that they have some absolute “right not to be offended”, and that their relious beliefs must always be above criticism… or else. [/quote]
Well clearly you are employing a false dichotomy, as well as jumping to baseless conclusions. You are overlooking the fact that the gov. rep was speaking about PERCEPTIONS OF JUSTIFICATION, in other words emotional states, not even so much as hinting about any right not to be offended. You have literally NO BASIS whatsoever to support your claims. Another of the logical errors you are employing here is universalizing from an instance. You assume from the observation that this offense will give rise to emotional “justification” that there exists a necessary justification for any action whatsoever from any hint of any insult whatsoever, yet you have NONE of the criteria which would be necessary to support such an assumption.
BTW I am saddened by the way that you simply ignored the observation that you lump ALL muslims into the category of “suicide bombers” and “terrorists.”
Do you seriously not get the very simple point made by the gov. official? Do you really believe that the best method for reducing tensions is ridiculing those who were minding their own busines until viciously attacked and enslaved? Come on.
[quote post="274"]BTW I am saddened by the way that you simply ignored the observation that you lump ALL muslims into the category of “suicide bombers” and “terrorists.”[/quote]
I did no such thing. If you can show me exactly where I did so, then we can talk. Otherwise you are doing nothing more than playing your usual word games. If so, enjoy.
Jim,
That was a response to Pedro, not you. Your comments were without substance of any sort and were taken as such. They serve to describe your own failure to understand implication and necessity, which seems to be off topic and certainly something about which I saw no need to comment further.
As for the missing of this clear and disgusting reference to all muslims being terrorists and suicide bombers, the previous explanations are sufficient. Nonetheless, all one need to do is read the article, in which the person quoted refers to offending ALL MUSLIMS, and then read the response in which this group is referenced by the description “suicide bombers.” While I hope that Pedro simply typed without thinking of what is necessarily implied, this in no way negated what is necessitated by the statement.
TX: again, I say you are reading meanings and implications in my post that are simply not there.
Do I believe all (or even most) Muslims are terrorists or suicide bombers? No. Just like most Christians don’t bomb abortion clinics. Both can be really nice people, to the extent that they ignore their holy books (which are full of intolerance and incitations to violence).
I do, however, believe that these people who are being offended by Rushdie’s books are being ridiculous… and, yes, most of the offended ones are those who condone the use of violence in “defense” of their faith. Rushdie wrote several books, including one who made an ayatollah condemn him to death, forcing him to go into hiding for years. Now he’s knighted. Is this a crime? Does this justify any kind of violence?
I also think that the Pakistani minister’s statement clearly shows that he thinks any suicide bombers going against Britain because of this are justified… not just emotionally. Not that he’d do it, of course, but he wouldn’t shed any tears if someone else did it. This is what I read in his statements. You, of course, are free to read something else.
My point is: just like 10 years ago a lot of Muslims believed that violence was an appropriate response to a book, they now believe it is an appropriate response to an honor given to that book’s author. In other words, “hurt feelings”, to them, are as bad as being killed. Do all Muslims think like this? Of course not. Do some think like this? Yes. And they’re acting like children who, when in a temper tantrum, hit anything and anyone near them… because their feelings are “hurt”, so that gives them the “right”.
Offending someone doesn’t give you the right to kill the offender. Offend me all you want - I won’t then demand your head on a platter. I don’t care whether you offend my atheist beliefs. Go ahead. I’m not so unsure or defensive about my beliefs as to require your death if you question, doubt or ridicule them.
There is no justification for suicide bombing (or any other kind of bombing) based on being offended.
Pedro,
Regardless of what you may have intended, or what you may feel to be the case, logically speaking you did in fact quite clearly and irrefutably call all muslims “suicide bombers” and imply that they are all terrorists. Stating that this is not there in no way makes this disappear. Take the statement to any logician and you will find that in fact the implication you make is indeed there and quite clear.
As for the minister’s statements, why not take them at their meaning? Why make assumptions for which you have no evidence? What in his statements justifies calling all muslims terrorists and suicide bombers? This is not a matter of choosing to read “something else” but rather about choosing to read what was written or choosing to create something out of whole cloth.
The minister pointed out that celebrating an individual whose primary (if not only) accomplishment was the act of insulting an entire group of individuals. This celebration of the insult is itself another insult. He pointed out that this sort of practice makes calming the situation all the more difficult. These are practical concerns, and very real ones. The ongoing treatment of all muslims as less than equals, or as unworty of concern IS indeed a major problem and a contributor to the situation in which we find ourselves. Suicide bombing is not inherent to Islam, so why pretend that it is? Why not condemn the actions themselves rather than trying to equate the actions with a particular belief as was necessitated by your original post? I am of course relieved that you now state that is not what you intended (or abandoned the position, either way..) but the original statemet is sadly revealing of a very common characteristic in discussions of the current round of aggression against muslims.
Notice that I no where offer any hint of any justification for aggression against another (though you tried to imply that I took that position) rather I am simply pointing out the identical behaviors being taken in the very criticisms of those behaviors. Why on earth would we assume the attitude that “we” are so superior to all others that “we” can bomb them, insult them, attack them repeatedly, try to control their lives, and the like, and then get our collective “panties” in a wad when they dare to respond? Pretending that “our” actions have no consequences is foolish at best, and in no way offers up any justification for those actions.
I agree with the statement that there is no justification for suicide bombing merely on being offended, but then being offended is only a very small part of this now isn’t it? (A negative answer here merely supports the profound arrogance which dismisses all muslims as below contempt)
[quote post="274"]Your comments were without substance of any sort and were taken as such.[/quote]
You and I finally have something in common then. Who could have thought it?
TX Storm,
you wrote:
I agree with the statement that there is no justification for suicide bombing merely on being offended, but then being offended is only a very small part of this now isn’t it? (A negative answer here merely supports the profound arrogance which dismisses all muslims as below contempt)
The implication you make is that because the argument goes deeper than mere ‘offense’ that there is some justification for suicide bombing, or the ordering of a Fatwa. In actual fact the argument IS about offense being taken. Certain Muslims (not all!!!) found the Satanic Verses offensive, and a tiny minority of those declared this offense reason enough to call for the killing of Salman Rushdie. A negative answer here surely is missing the point of the Salman Rushdie/Satanic Verses issue. It’s not about governments and their morally corrupt actions, or blind bombing of innocent civilians in a warzone - this is about one man writing a book which contained elements which offended some people, who then saw this as enough to justify killing him. Whatever you may say, that is just plain wrong.
There is no justification for the incitement contained in the words ‘Death to Rushdie, death to Britain.’ I’m British, I have Muslim friends. I don’t feel that there is a good argument for this position. It’s only a book - fair enough and discuss it if you disagree with it (as we are all doing on this thread) - but do not use violence as the recourse when you feel upset about a book.
I’m not saying, TXStorm, that you are defending suicide bombing or violence. But sometimes, as you pointed out re Pedro, what you say and what you mean can be very different things. And sometimes words can be misconstrued or taken out of context.
Anyway… I’m British and not over the moon that people want to kill me (death to Britain) because of a book some guy wrote. That is wrong. But I will not be advocating their deaths either.
Glenn,
You cannot logically make the inference that you make. Nothing I have said so much as hints at justification, and I am quite clear on this point. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy and profound arrogance in the attitude being expressed by not merely the brits, but by several posters here.
As for your strawman tactic in which you imply that I am trying to justify the calls for the death of Rushdie, the fact that you would employ this tactic speaks quite loudly about the strength of the position you wish could be defended. I do not support aggression of any sort, and once again I have been quite clear on this point so such dishonest tactics will such as you are employing here will never succeed in representing anything I have said or implied.
As for words being taken out of context or misconstrued, I am arguing against doing this and pointing out what the words actually mean. That others wish that the words held a different meaning or intended that their words had different meanings in no way changes the meaning as they are written.
But let us be clear since there is such strong emotion working to prevent clarity, while there is no justification for the killing Rushdie for his insults, neither is there any justification in equating all muslims with terrorism. How about we employ that single standard instead of using multiple standards or in treating muslims as unworthy of consideration or moral value?
I can and I did logically make the inference. All I am saying is that I’m against killing for dubious reasons such as offense. You and I both agree with that, it seems.
I actually said “I’m not saying, TXStorm, that you are defending suicide bombing or violence” I concede you are against suicide bombing - that’s not the point I was trying to make. I was saying that it could be construed that way. By suggesting that there are reasons when it might be acceptable led me to this conclusion (…no justification for suicide bombing merely on being offended, but…). If I was wrong, then sorry.
This wasn’t me defending the Brits, TX, I just stated how I feel about what you said.
Tell me how “Death to Rushdie, death to Britain” is taken out of context? As you say, we should stick to the actual words and their meanings.
What do you mean by “speaks quite loudly about the strength of the position you wish could be defended” what position am I trying to defend. That suicide bombing is wrong? I won’t apologise for defending that position, TX.
BTW, TXStorm, I agree there is no justification in equating all muslims with terrorism. No argument from me on that. However, I don’t think Pedro meant that.
Glenn, to make that inference you must apply at least one instance of false dichotomy. You must assume that in recognizing PRACTICAL concerns and the ACTUAL meaning of the words uttered, one must be JUSTIFYING any actions whatsoever. Clearly there are an infinite number of alternatives to these two upon which your inference lay.
And here we have a clear statement of the false premise also in play, which of course further demonstrates that the inference cannot be made logically: [quote]By suggesting that there are reasons when it might be acceptable [/quote]
No where do I make that suggestion, in fact I have been quite explicit in condemning acts of aggression.
The position to which I referred is the one you continue to defend, that being that I was actually making the strawman argument of your creation. But then you know that because I was quite clear in my explanatory statement.
As for the out of context reference, I was referring to your use of that notion, please do not try to put words into my mouth.
It would be nice if you actually read a post before you proceed to condemn it TX.
You are right (there I’ve said it, again). There is an infinite number of alternative inferences I could have made based on what you wrote. But I inferred one meaning - which I admitted could have been wrong! Hello, I admitted it! Can you at least accept an admission of error without trying to ram it down my throat (metaphorically speaking - in case you take that literally)?
Your literalism is an example of the kind that some (not all, repeat not all) of the religionista is rightly lambasted for. Whatever you say to try to argue your way around it, I inferred (wrongly) that you meant something else. Blimey, get a grip. Can one man not accept another man’s apology? Try it someday, TXStorm.
Clearly, you are my intellectual superior - and as such I respectfully bow out of this conversation should you embarrass me further.
Let us agree, shall we, that it’s wrong to suicide bomb other people because of the contents of a book… any book…
Nice ad hominem post..
When you speak out of both sides of your mouth, you cannot honestly be surprised when another points this out, or addresses the negative. The approach used, is akin to though more subtle than saying “All due respect, but you are an ass” The preceeding statement of “respect” in no way lessens the insult offered. So when you state that I was taking the position that there are reasons why acts of aggression, specifically suicide bombing, are acceptable you are negating the vague sort of acknowledgement that I did not take that position.
When you stated that your inference was logically supportable, and then preceeded to defend this, you made a patently false claim which was easily shown to be objectively false. By trying to equate that which is logically sound with what is logically unsound, or in this case clearly untrue, reduces all claims to mere emotion, removing truth from the equation. What you are calling “literalism” and trying to dismiss by equating it with faith, is really simply taking words at their meaning, and taking individuals at their words. Those acting in faith avoid such attitudes and behaviors, especially since these are elements of critical thought which are the bane of faith.
None of this is about superiority (the notion that I would take that way is ironic given that my arguments have been addressing exactly that attitude) or one person being better than another. It is all about truth and practical concerns.
TXStorm,
I’ve been meaning to do this, believe it or not, for months. Please don’t take this a personal offense, but I’d like you to stop visiting, or at least commenting on my blog. I’d rather ask you, instead of banning you in some technical way, as I respect you as a rational person, but I will do that if necessary.
This is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with you. It’s just this: you prevent any discussions of the kind I want here. It has happened often in the past, and I’ve seen many people stopping commenting altogether after a few comment exchanges with you. I could point to many examples where that happened.
You’ve been here for almost a year, and during that time I’ve seen the comments of this blog going in a direction I hate. Many times, I write a post, for instance, challenging Christians to explain some contradiction in their beliefs. Then someone answers, and immediately gets a reply from you ending any possible discussion then and there. This is not what I want. I’ve even found myself, from time to time, “afraid” to comment on my own blog.
This may be because I’m “too nice” or because I dislike confrontations, but that doesn’t really matter now.
I want a blog where anyone can comment without fear of being accused of “cowardly doing this” or “dishonestly doing that” (and those are ad hominems), which you often do. I want a blog where minor points of a question can be discussed at will, without someone being “cut down” because you’ve already stated the final answer, and that’s the end of it.
As I said, I dislike confrontation, and that’s why I put off doing this for months. But I don’t want to keep a blog where people are afraid to comment, and there’s only one cause for it. I don’t want to be forced to close the blog, so, again, please, stay away, or at least don’t comment anymore.
This is not about being right or wrong, or about agreeing or disagreeing with your opinions, but about what your presence does to the blog and to its readers.
I hope that you will respect my wishes on this, and that I won’t actually have to do anything in technical terms. But will will be as firm in this as I have to. I don’t think anything more needs to be said about this matter.
Best regards, and best of luck,
Pedro
Pedro,
I would have left without any word whatsoever had you refrained from false personal attack. This is your property, and I absolutely respect that and so it is my inclination to abide by the rules of the property owner. At no point have I done otherwise and I will not change that principle now.
But respecting the property of another does not extend to allowing blatantly false accusations. Referring to intellectual dishonesty, or even to ordinary dishonest claims do not constitute ad hominems by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not by the very meaning of the terms.
I believe I addressed the mistaken assertion concerning “cowardly etc.” once previously demonstrating that you were attributing to me the comments of another, so it is somewhat bothersome that you would once again bring up that which was already refuted.
The implication that I decree some “final answer” is of course inaccurate in the extreme, and yes this is a wonderful example of a dishonest claim. I actively explain often that there is nothing about a claim coming from a given individual that makes it true or false, rather it is in direct comparison to reality which determines truth. Any claim I have made is easily proved true or false by comparing it to reality, just as with the claims of anyone else. The only difference is that I accept reality as the “final answer” rather than undertaking the personal attacks which you ironically attribute to me.
I am sorry that you choose the easy shoot the messenger approach rather than taking a stand against ad hominems and personal attacks, or in supporting honest civil discussion, but as I have said, I respect the wishes of all property owners on/in their own property. A few simple comments addressing those who choose to make personal attacks would have ended all of this long before it began, had you chosen to make them.
There is no need to take any other measures for I will stay away, with the one caveat that if you choose to continue false accusations against my person then I will respond. If you refrain from such aggression and dishonesty, then I of course will have no reason to respond. I am truly sorry that you have chosen the easy and less principled approach.
There are several points I could argue in your reply, but I really don’t want to prolong this, so… be assured that I won’t make any accusations (false or otherwise) against you, and I ask any other potential commenters to please refrain from talking about you as well. Water under the bridge. End of story.
Now, if anyone else wants to discuss the original post’s subject, feel free.
WOW.
Well first off, It’s IMPOSSIBLE (for me, as it will be to any other readers) to ignore what has already been posted here. (Though it IS concidered, water under the bridge.)
Second, this quote:
[quote post="274"]If you offend the kind, sensitive suicide bombers, YOU’RE the monster![/quote]
I believe to be a totally sarcastic remark.
Offending suicide bombers makes one not a monster. (I would think this is not only obvious, but the point of post.) Let me see anybody put a gun in my own, or in other innocent peoples face and watch me show some offense. (Hopefully I’ll have the courage. Killing ANY innocent person should be an act of one expecting offense.
In short, I think most everybody who has posted above THIS post is in agreement that:
1. One’s religion doesn’t make anybody a bad person. (Well, almost anybody… UNIFICATION CHURCH!!)
2. Destroying a mosque (Or church, or… whatever (when there even MAY be innocent lives inside)) is EVIL. I don’t care how crazy the bombers are, innocence is innocence. NOT to be F’d with.
3. Bombing someone (anyone) because of what somebody else SAID about something (anything) is ridiculous. They can write a book, make a movie, it doesn’t matter.
Yes, religion demands that people act as if something that hurts their feelings is someone who needs to die. BUT I figure that it’s of merit to understand the demands that religions make. These people were taught this way. Probably from childhood. This doesn’t make it RIGHT or MORAL by any means, but they are all human, and could probably be taught what reality and morality actually are.
Humans are SMART, but not perfect, and we all could learn something.
I wonder if you even have read the book, or any of his other books. Rushdie is a good and prolific author, and I think he deserves the knighthood. I knew his writings before I learned about this controversy, and I feel sorry that he is being slammed, because he’s the victim, and not the faith-heads and thugs that want to murder him.
It’s just your own uncharitable interpretation, which was then refuted by the author.
Pedro,
My respect for you has grown many-fold in reading the exchanges in this post. Though we may not agree in many, many areas I personally believe you did the right thing.