Islam: Salman Rushie Gets A Price Bump
It seems even the "Religion of Peace" (which commands Muslims to slaughter any Muslim or "infidel" who insults Mohammed) is affected by inflation.
The Iranian foundation (!) -- to quote Nick Gillespie -- that manages the fatwa against Rushdie has recently upped its reward for the murder of the "Satanic Verses" author by $500,000.
Gillespie writes at reason:
The book was published in 1988 and its Japanese translator was killed in an attack.Reason interviewed Rushdie back in 2005. Here are some excerpts worth thinking about:
The idea of universal rights--the idea of rights that are universal to all people because they correspond to our natures as human beings, not to where we live or what our cultural background is--is an incredibly important one. This belief is being challenged by apostles of cultural relativism who refuse to accept that such rights exist. If you look at those who employ this idea, it turns out to be Robert Mugabe, the leaders of China, the leaders of Singapore, the Taliban, Ayatollah Khomeini. It is a dangerous belief that everything is relative and therefore these people should be allowed to kill because it's their culture to kill.I think we live in a bad age for the free speech argument. Many of us have internalized the censorship argument, which is that it is better to shut people up than to let them say things that we don't like. This is a dangerous slippery slope, because people of good intentions and high principles can see censorship as a way of advancing their cause and not as a terrible mistake. Yet bad ideas don't cease to exist by not being expressed. They fester and become more powerful....
Rushdie has said "The Innocence of Muslims" is an "idiotic...piece of garbage" but called the protests against it "an ugly reaction that needs to be named as such."
I do not quite understand the need to pass aesthetic judgment on a work before making a free speech argument, but that seems to be a minority opinion. Does anyone else find it puzzling, though? It's almost as if Theo van Gogh, murdered by an Islamist nut job in the streets of Amsterdam in 2004, would have deserved his stabbing death if the production values of "Submission" had been a bit lower.
I think the reason people are commenting on how bad it is before talking about the free speech issue is that it's not just bad; it's unbelievably terrible - it's like a 3th grade community theatre project. How could anyone actually be offended by something so abysmally awful as to be at first glance even possibly a spoof? What I saw of it (couldn't stand to watch much) - my 1st thought was, "is this a joke? is it this bad on purpose?" Which, if that's the case, means it was made for some unknown purpose. None of that makes any difference to the free speech issues, and of course no one apparently cares if you're insulting islam as a joke or deadly seriously. So what's the difference? It's just so bad that you have to wonder why. I mean, if you're gonna insult islam at least do a good job.
chickia at September 17, 2012 11:21 AM
what's the difference?
The difference is that now everything can be labeled as hate speech, since all is relative. The government is now in charge of how a person feels.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/times_changes/
The New York Times editorial of October 2, 1999, defends the display of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ and Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary:
A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.
The New York Times editorial of September 12, 2012, condemns the display of The Innocence of Muslims:
Whoever made the film did true damage to the interests of the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths.
Whatever happened to “challenging the public”? Or is that obligation rendered non-obligatory when a certain public responds to challenges by killing people?
(Via Alan R.M. Jones)
UPDATE. Mo versus Mo! Mark Steyn discovers the latest Islamic reason for rage:
Okay, so it’s not just films, and cartoons, and dogs and teddy bears and Winnie-the-Pooh’s Piglet and decorative swirls on Burger King ice-cream tubs, but also non-sharia-compliant mustaches …
Stinky the Clown at September 17, 2012 12:25 PM
my 1st thought was, "is this a joke? is it this bad on purpose?" Which, if that's the case, means it was made for some unknown purpose.
I will not be surprised to find out that the film maker is a good Muslim. And that he'll get a pass on the whole "insulting Islam" since they appear to be using it as an example of the West's decadence and intolerance of Islam.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 17, 2012 12:50 PM
I think they're just using the attacks as a distraction to get Rushdie.
Jim P. at September 17, 2012 4:08 PM
I've still never read The Satanic Verses, but here is a sample and a way to get a free audiobook copy:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Satanic-Verses/dp/B005FSRR94/ref=tmm_aud_title_0
Eric at September 17, 2012 4:15 PM
I bought Satanic Verses the day after the fatwa. And read it.
Rushdie is a brilliant writer, but like nearly all examples of high-brow fiction, it isn't a particularly easy read.
I was living in England at the time, and remember well the weak-kneed response of the Thatcher government, a trend which has continued.
One can hardly expect others to take seriously what we sell so cheaply.
---
I haven't watched Innocence of the Muslims, so I have no idea about either its presentation or content. However, I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of imams who spew far worse, daily.
Islam needs to clean its finger before pointing out others' spots.
Jeff Guinn at September 17, 2012 5:26 PM
"The New York Times editorial of October 2, 1999, defends the display of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ and Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary".
Of course, the irony is that, for the intended audience, there is no challenge. These are trite, comfortable works for a self-satisified glitterati that are every bit as hidebound in their thinking as they like to imagine their grandparents were. It's comfort food for the Upper East Side, their Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. It lets them know that Gaia is in Her house and all is right with their world. They are the true bitter clingers.
Cousin Dave at September 18, 2012 6:57 AM
Leave a comment