Just for the record, I am not one of the 1.5 billion Muslims Iran is claiming are offended by the nighthood of Salman Rushdi.
However, I am deeply offended by Iran's and Pakistan's insistence on speaking in the name of 1.5 billion Muslims.
Update: a careless spelling mistake rendered this post nonsensical. My apologies. In light of the comments below, let me try again:
Just for the record, I am not one of the 1.5 billion Muslims Iran is claiming are offended by the Knighthood of Salman Rushdi.
However, I am deeply offended by Iran's and Pakistan's nighthood which makes them insist on speaking in the name of 1.5 billion Muslims.
Regardless of whatever Rushdi wrote in The Satanic Verses, the Iranian murder Fatwa against him undermined, in my opinion, any ethical right people had to be offended at his words. He didn't call for murder; he wrote a novel. The Iranian government called for murder. Hence the difference between his words and theirs. In fact, after what Rushdi went through as a result of that Fatwa, I wouldn't be offended if he were given the "sainthood."
site meter
4 comments:
Amal, your link to the BBC article doesn't clarify why you typed "nighthood" instead of "knighthood." Is "nighthood" a sarcastic reference to Iran's and Pakistan's condemnation of the award? Or does "nighthood" signal your own disapproval of the British government itself or of Rushdie personally, even if you are not offended by his work? It's not clear what you're implying here.
Or maybe it's a typing error? We all make them.
Why arent you offended? :)
"Regardless of whatever Rushdi wrote in The Satanic Verses, the Iranian murder Fatwa against him undermined, in my opinion, any ethical right people had to be offended at his words."
I feel like this is a type of logical fallacy --- "what someone said is more justified simply because he/she was threatened."
Lets say that the mayor of LA proposed that all blacks be kicked out of the city. As a result, residents of LA, and possibly across the country, begin rioting, much like the Rodney King riots. Many innocent civilians are killed in the riots, making the riots completely unjustified. The mayor himself is threatened and has to go into hiding. Would that make the Mayor more justified and/or immune to criticism? Is he now a hero, in spite of his words, simply because of all he has to endure?
NOTE: I'm not trying to compare Rushdie's words/opinions to the words/opinions of the hypothetical LA mayor. I personally have nothing against Rushdie, based on what I know of him [which is fairly little]. I'm simply trying to point out a logical point.
Post a Comment