Salman Rushdie To Blame For The Attack On Him…

[naomi24]

…says Iran.

//Iran's state broadcaster daily Jaam-e Jam highlighted the news that Rushdie might lose an eye following the attack, saying "an eye of the Satan has been blinded"….. Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani - giving the country's first official reaction - said Tehran "categorically" denied any link, adding "no-one has the right to accuse the Islamic Republic of Iran".

However, he said freedom of speech did not justify Mr Rushdie insulting religion in his writing.

"In this attack, we do not consider anyone other than Salman Rushdie and his supporters worthy of blame and even condemnation," the spokesman said during his weekly press conference in Tehran.

"By insulting the sacred matters of Islam and crossing the red lines of more than 1.5 billion Muslims and all followers of the divine religions, Salman Rushdie has exposed himself to the anger and rage of the people." //

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62546469

Anyone still in doubt about motive?

[lankeela]

Surely he must have known when he wrote it what the reaction would be - why do something that would go against the religious teachings of a country/religion? Bit like breaking the law in a country where for example alcohol or drugs are prohibited. Don't be surprised when the outcome is not pleasant.

[naomi24]

He wasn't living in Iran. He's never lived in Iran.

[lankeela]

I didn't say he had, but you don't have to live somewhere to offend the locals.

[naomi24]

That's the whole point though, lankeela. Should the rest of the world abandon its right to freedom of expression - something that in many instances it has fought long and hard for - for fear of offending religious foibles? I don't think so. J K Rowling has now received death threats for tweeting her support. It simply cannot be right on any level.

[Zacs-Master]

'Should the rest of the world abandon its right to freedom of expression - something that in many instances it has fought long and hard for'

I'd look back at a few of the Charlie Hebdo threads for an answer to that, Naomi.

[andy-hughes]

lankeela - // Bit like breaking the law in a country where for example alcohol or drugs are prohibited. Don't be surprised when the outcome is not pleasant. //

It's not like that at all.

Breaking the known laws of a country you visit invites appropriate sanction, you cannot compare that with writing a piece of fiction thousands of miles away.

Or even in the same country - if that was the case, Michael Moorcock's 'Behold The Man' would have seen him lynched, or more likely, crucified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behold_the_Man_(novel)

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // It's a dreadful book, TTT. Rubbish. Pure fantasy and rotten reading. But it is based on verses that allegedly came from Satan which Muhammad, having mistakenly assumed them to be divine revelation involving other Gods apart from Allah, is said to have added to the Koran. They were subsequently removed - some say they never existed - and Islam prefers not to mention them at all. //

Interesting - thanks very much for that.

I know how deeply acquainted you are with the ability of religious followers to interpret their tomes as it suits them, but to actually be offended by reference to something that they deny actually exists, is a new level of bafflement for me

[naomi24]

AH, the first half of your sentence is misleading. From discussions here that appears to be your opinion but it doesn’t accurately reflect mine.

[Ellipsis]

There are many people in the UK who believe that if somebody says something they don't like, it justifies them receiving a smack in the mouth from the offended party. Many of those same people support the reintroduction of the death penalty.

Responding to words with violence. Killing people who have offended. Both are supported here.

We're still dealing with the Saudis despite their murder of Khashoggi on Turkish soil. We (and our friends) even let the Novichok poisonings in Salisbury pass, only properly falling out with Russia when they started a war in Ukraine, not posoined our own citizens on our own soil! Perhaps our hesitancy comes because we're not entirely clean ourselves when it comes to our own attacks and actions abroad. Expediency over honour.

The main issue that we seem to have with Rushdie being attacked is the whole mediaeval nature of it. But we're not so far removed from it in our own society ...

[davebro]

//There are many people in the UK who believe that if somebody says something they don't like, it justifies them receiving a smack in the mouth from the offended party//

In your opinion or can you supply the stats?

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, we are a million miles - and more - from it.

[Ellipsis]

> In your opinion or can you supply the stats?

Just go into your local town centre on a Saturday night and observe. Or sit at the back of your local magistrates' court and listen. If you want stats, try the crime statistics:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault-statistical-bulletin.pdf

Unfortunately, they are not broken down to the level of detail of "I 'it 'im because he said something nasty to my missus."

[Ellipsis]

> we are a million miles - and more - from it

Whatever the distance, we could be further ...

[Old_Geezer]

"Freedom of thought is not encouraged within Islam. Quite the opposite - as Mr Rushdie’s experience proves."

Which isn't that relevant since it merely shows that for Islam extremists their version/interpretation of their religion is utterly immoral and IMO does not gel with the majority view of it. This is a problem while different teachers teach different viewpoints. What is needed is an official religion-wide definition of their religion where any old anachronistic views undergo a reformation, thus bringing it into the modern enlightened world.

[naomi24]

Sorry to say, OG, it is relevant. I’m sure I said something earlier about the mistake westerners make when they assume that Islamists share a similar mindset.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi at 16.28 - I don't understand what your point is.

[naomi24]

Sorry, AH, on re-reading that first sentence I now see where you’re coming from.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi, thanks, no problem.