Salman Rushdie

[donsaeid]

ستاد پاسداشت شهداي نهضت جهاني اسلام جايزهاي 150هزار دلاري براي هر كس كه بتواند حكم امام خميني مبني بر اعدام سلمان رشدي مرتد را اجرا كند، تعيين كرد.



فروز رجايي فر دبيركل ستاد پاسداشت شهداي نهضت جهاني اسلام در گفتگو با فارس، با اعلام اين خبر گفت: در سال 83 اين ستاد مبلغ 100 هزار دلار براي فردي كه بتواند سلمان رشدي مرتد را اعدام كند، تعيين كرده بود.



وي با اشاره به اقدام اسلام ستيزانه انگليس در اعطاي نشان شواليه به سلمان رشدي افزود: از همان ابتداي صدور حكم مهدورالدم بودن سلمان رشدي از سوي حضرت امام خميني (ره) مسلمانان زيادي مترصد اجراي اين حكم تاريخي امام هستند و به همين دليل سلمان رشدي تا كنون 19 سال است كه در كابوس زندگي مي كند.



دبيركل ستاد پاسداشت شهداي نهضت جهاني اسلام به قسمتي از پيام امام خميني(ره) براي اعدام سلمان رشدي اشاره كرد كه فرمودند: "سلمان رشدي اگر توبه كند و زاهد زمان هم گردد، بر هر مسلمان واجب است با جان و مال تمامي* همّ خود را به كار گيرد تا او را به درك واصل گرداند. اگر غير مسلماني از مكان او مطلع گردد و قدرت اين را داشته باشد تا سريعتر از مسلمانان او را اعدام كند، بر مسلمانان واجب است آنچه را كه در قبال اين عمل مي*خواهد به عنوان جايزه يا مزد عمل به او بپردازند."



رجايي فر تصريح كرد: انگليسي ها و حاميان اسلام ستيز سلمان رشدي بايد مطمئن باشند كه كابوس اين نويسنده مرتد تا لحظه مرگش پايان نخواهد يافت و بر دستان هركس كه بتواند اين مرتد را اعدام كند، بوسه مي*زنيم و مبلغ 150 هزار دلار هديه ناقابل به مجري حكم امام خميني(ره)براي اعدام سلمان رشدي است

[indian_blues]

who cares abt his knighthood he has a beautiful wife and she hails from the city where i'm.

[donsaeid]

روزنامه "شمس" چاپ ليبي، در سرمقاله شماره روز دوشنبه، در واكنش به اقدام انگليس در اعطاي لقب "سر" به سلمان رشدي، وي را "شواليه شياطين" خواند.


به گزارش ايرنا، در اين مطلب با عنوان "سلمان رشدي، شواليه شياطين"، آمده است: انگلستان جشن ميلاد ملكه خود را با اعطاي لقب زشت شواليه و نيز "سر" به سلمان رشدي برگزار كرد، تا از اين طريق عليه عزم و اراده يك ميليارد مسلمان گام بردارد.

نويسنده اين پرسش را مطرح كرده است كه "نمي*دانيم چه عكس*العملي از سوي انگلستان صورت مي*گرفت، چنانچه كمترين رفتار مشابهي را از سوي مسلمانان ملاحظه مي*كرد؟
سرمقاله نويس شمس، با اشاره به اينكه انگليس با اين اقدام، كينه خود را نسبت به مسلمانان بروز مي*دهد، افزوده است: اكنون سلمان رشدي صاحب كتاب "آيه*هاي شيطاني" كه پيامبر اسلام (ص) را مورد تمسخر قرار داده و احساسات مسلمانان جهان را به تمسخر گرفته است، شواليه سرزمين انگلستان شده است.

روزنامه شمس، مي*نويسد: آنچه از كتاب آيات شيطاني سلمان رشدي ملاحظه مي*شود، اين است كه وي با چنگالهاي شيطان گونه خود، جرات يافته تا نسبت به پيروان دومين مكتب بزرگ جهان از نظر تعداد پيروان، جسارت كند.

اين روزنامه پرسيده است كه نمي*دانيم چرا انگلستان چنين اشتباه بزرگي را مرتكب شده است، در حالي كه آنها بيشتر از هر كس ديگر مسلمانان را مي*شناسند و مي*دانند كه آنها چقدر اهل تسامح و مدارا هستند.

نويسنده تاكيد كرده است: امكان دارد مسلمانان در مورد هر چيزي كوتاه بيايند، اما در زمينه عقيده خود اهل كوتاه آمدن نيستند و حاضر نمي*شوند كه در قبال توهين به مقدسات خود كوتاه بيايند.

اين روزنامه با اشاره به اينكه انگليسي*ها در كمال حقد و كينه نسبت به مسلمانان، لقب شواليه و "سر" را به سلمان رشدي اعطا كردند، افزوده است كه آنها نشان دادند هر چند همواره از آزادي و آزادي بيان و عقيده دم مي*زنند، اما هيچ ارزش و احترامي براي ديگران قايل نمي*شوند. اين در حالي است كه اين مساله از نخستين شرطهاي برقراري جامعه مدني و تمدن است و مدنيت و تمدن شكل نمي*گيرد، مگر با احترام به ديگران.

سرمقاله نويس روزنامه الشمس، تاكيد كرده است: ما خواستار تحريم و قطع رابطه و همچنين اعمال زور و خشونت به هر شكل و روشي كه باشد نيستيم، اما ما به اين افراد كه خود را متمدن مي*دانند، مي*گوييم كه اين گونه حرفها جايش در زباله داني و... است و شايسته نيست علني شده و از آن آشكارا سخن گفت. چه برسد به اينكه گوينده آن را تجليل كرده و بالاترين نشانها را به وي اعطا كنند.

نويسنده تاكيد كرده است: دين اسلام، استوارتر و مستحكم*تر از آن است كه با اين بادهاي سبك به لرزه درآيد، هر چند قباحت اين اقدام، شديد و شنيع باشد.

[Rasputin]

Sir Zero

The Rushdie saga has now climaxed. Unless there is an intervention from whichever angel Mr. Rushdie believes in, he will be Sir Salman Rushdie, Knight of the British Empire. I kid you not! Well, the exact title will depend on which bag of peanuts they toss him.

Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” has a special meaning to me. I could almost say that it was my awakening. I remember when I passed by a bookstore in 1988, and a stack of this book was selling like hot cakes. I was a teenage boy at the time and had been in the US for only four years by then.

Along with my suitcases, I had brought with me the naiveté that my oppressor’s enemy must be my liberator. I wholeheartedly believed that Western governments, although at times mischievous, are in general the ultimate manifestation of liberty and democracy.

Rushdie’s book introduced the first crack in a cascade of cracks that brought down that misconception. It took many years and other books like “King Leopold’s Ghost” and “Heart of Darkness” to even begin to grasp how the cogwheels of imperialism turn.

I bought “Satanic Verses”, and I made an honest attempt at reading it. The novel in my opinion did not flow well and towards the end I gave up. This is not to suggest that Rushdie’s writing is bad. On the contrary, his other works speak for themselves. His genre is just not my cup of tea.

My final conclusion from “Satanic Verses” was that it was insulting. I think calling for his death and stabbing several publishers and translators around the world was flatly wrong. In fact, that is why I bought it. I thought that the Fatwa was extreme and wanted to read the book to see what it was all about.

Regardless, to the people of faith, the book would be offensive. If it was another religion, then I guarantee that portraying that religion’s prophet in the same manner would have offended his followers. None of this, of course, justifies calling for Rushdie’s (and other’s) death. Rushdie ought to have the right to write and publish what he wants. Muslims ought to have the right to be offended and express themselves PEACEFULLY. However, the focus in the media at the time was Islamic extremism and issues of freedom of expression.

I have no problem with freedom of expression and I fully support it. But to connect only Islam with extremism is absolutely unfair and counterproductive. All you have to do is to tune into one of the televangelist programs on TV. The likes of Pat Robertson could teach the Muftis of Cairo and the Mullahs of Tehran a few things about preaching extremism. However, none of that is ever scrutinized as much as Islamic extremism.

Plus, the Muslim leaders can get a band of fanatics on the streets to burn a few effigies and cars. Pat Robertson can muster enough support for an American president to invade two countries and murder over a million people. Which one is more extreme?

Or consider the hatred spewed out by some Israeli rabbis. It is shocking that a people who went through the Holocaust would speak of other human beings in that manner. However, the Rushdies of our times only have enough courage to give a lopsided criticism of Islamic extremism. I should be clear here. Islamic extremism is absolutely wrong and must be addressed. But, in the same breath other relevant forms of extremism ought to be condemned also.

To take an example, Rushdie along with some other ideological clones of himself penned their names to the “Manifesto.” They claimed it was a stance against a “global totalitarian threat: Islamism.” They wrote and published this letter around the time of the cartoons printed in the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten. Now, this really gets my goat. The one piece of vital info that was ignored by the signatory to the “Manifesto” and much of Western mainstream media was that the same paper had three years earlier rejected satirical cartoons of Jesus Christ!!! You can read about this story here.

The editor of the paper had written in the rejection email, that "I don't think the readers of Jyllands-Posten would be pleased with the drawings. I think they would cause an outrage. That's why I won't use them." So much for freedom of expression, and Rushdie’s chicken-hawk support for it! I do wonder what would have been the reviews of his book had he wrote a novel turning the account of Temptation of Christ into a farce. In my opinion, it would have been offensive.

It’s not possible to stand against Islamic totalitarianism, while ignoring all the other forms of extremism and, more importantly, who is supporting the Islamic totalitarians. Just the same, you cannot tell one of your children to stop running around the house, while you ignore your other child’s marathon around the kitchen. You won’t teach discipline and you will foment deep rooted resentment in your children.

The approach of Rushdie (and others) has zero effect in dampening the waves of Islamic extremism. In fact, the likes of him exacerbate this phenomenon by their uneven treatment of it. I don’t want to be misunderstood. The Muslim community’s violent reaction to the cartoons was criminal at best. Even the boycott that had a devastating effect on Danish economy was at the very least unjust. However, the answer to these issues is nowhere in Rushdie’s approach.

It’s not just Rushdie. Malcolm X put the problem very elegantly. In the slavery days, there were some slaves that lived with the master in his mansion. They were lighter in complexion and enjoyed some of the amenities in the master’s house. They were the “house Negros.” The other slaves, the “field Negros,” had a much more dismal life. The house slaves were quicker to defend the master than the master himself. If the field slaves would complain about the cruelty of the master, the house slaves would rebuke them and blame the field slaves for the master’s behavior.

Similarly, Tariq Ali extends this analogy to the Arab world. He says that today there are Western educated Arabs, who are more eager to defend the injustices committed by Western governments than any Western pundit. These “house Arabs” have little invested in their home countries. All they aim for is a thin veneer of democracy so that on their vacations back to the “plantation fields,” they don’t feel uncomfortable. And as always, they are more than eager to point the finger of accusation at the Muslim world, without ever addressing the roots of the problems.

'We too have our ‘’house Persians.” These proud “Aryans” (another farce!) are the ones trumpeting the current sentiments of Western government. Now days, they are falling over each other trying to beat the drums of war harder than the “masters.” After all, they won’t feel the sting of “shock and awe”, just as the house slaves rarely, if ever, would feel the sting of the master’s whip.

So, here we are, full circle around. And Indian-born, Muslim is a Knight of the British Empire, the very same empire that... well, no need to go through all that. It is one thing to change one’s citizenship because of current sociopolitical factors. That’s a choice. It’s something all together different to accept membership to an order whose motto is “for God and the Empire”, while the footprints of the Empire are still stamped on one’s rear end. I hope that when this Indian Sir Knight arises, he does take a good look at the jewels in the crown and ponder the shame of the “honor” he has accepted.

By the way, for as much as Rushdie condemns the unequal treatment of women in Islam, he should know that Dames of the British Empire are not treated exactly the same as the Knights of the British Empire.

I am ashamed of what my government did to Rushdie. I can only begin to understand his suffering. But, I’m also ashamed that the likes of him are portrayed as the voices of reason in the West. If Rushdie believes anything that he preaches, he would do what Benjamin Zephaniah did upon being nominated for the Order of the British Empire. He refused it and said “it reminds me of how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalized.”

I don’t expect that kind of courage from Sir Salman Rushdie, KBE. For now, dance Rushdie, dance!

[Rasputin]

Sir Ruhollah Khomeini

The objective is not to defend the 'organized religion' and sometimes the best is to let it be just like we do not mess around with 'organized crime'. But the intention of this discussion is to show how religion is being used to suppress millions of people. If it wasn't for petroleum and greed of oil; Islam in the eyes of the westerners most likely would have been as dear as Buddhism or any other organized religion.

Salman Rushdie most likely would be nobody if it wasn't for Ruhollah Khomeini. Considering Rushdie's cheap novel Satanic Verses, it would have been ignored even by the most zealot Muslims, but following the British line, it was Khomeini that made a name for this "Indian" author and eventually helped him to get a title of "Sir" and knighthood from Khomeini's bosses.

Since this bizarre masquerade runs almost through three generations it is simple for the naiveté to give credence to this story of how an Indian Muslim-born writer wrote a novel manifesto about Islam called Satanic Verses and became a subject of a death sentence fatwa by Khomeini. After that Rushdie went to hiding and gained fifty pounds and when he came out of hiding Khomeini was gone and the Muslim world was just too busy saving its shirt than worrying about a half-*** writer such as Rushdie.

Islamization of Iran has been a work in progress that goes back to 1970's. The grand scam of pushing back Iran to dark ages has many building blocks among them been to bring Khomeini to power. Khomeini's father was a British spy born in India and was sent to Iran during Ghajars and served the British well and subsequently his son became the key pun in gradual destruction of Iran and was commissioned to Iran to overthrow the Shah.

The ironic situation that many might not pay attention to is that the British plan worked well. One British appointed man with Indian heritage "Khomeini" issues a fatwa of death sentence on another Indian "Rushdie" to basically spread the fire of hatred of the west towards Islam in general and Iran in particular. Although Khomeini was too old and senile to understand what people around him were doing in his name nonetheless his hatred of Iranian nationalism played very well into the British hands who had given Rushdie a mission of publishing his thoughts. The plan so far has worked according to the expectations. When you add up all incidents such as Rushdie rise to knighthood and Iran's nuclear energy ambition, all such issues has given the west carte blanche to do as it pleases; invasion of two countries and isolation of Iran for three decades and to inhibit Iran's economy from any progress by appointing corrupt tyrants into key positions.

This cat and mouse show is not close to an ending by any means yet. The hand-picked Iranians are running the shows in line with British diplomacy and its sphere of influence. From Ahmadinejad a clairvoyant feeble President that sees Imam Zaman and talks to him during his schizophrenic episodes to a world body that despises everything that Iran stands for, all cards are in line to keep Iran from any progress simply because it's the second largest oil producer in the world with huge untapped other natural resources and smart people. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been the best friend of all countries of the world except Iran.

No other nation has been harmed from the Islamic Republic other than the Iranians. This proves that these clans were neither elected nor selected by the Iranians. The grant of knighthood to Rushdie was just another daily dose of reminder to the world that Islam is their number one enemy and they should be afraid of it, very afraid. For all fairness Queen Elizabeth of London should have also awarded a posthumous 'Sir' title and an order of knighthood as a thank you gesture to another servant of the British throne Ruhollah Khomeini.

[Rasputin]

Rushdie diplomatic row escalates

Sir Salman has said he is thrilled by the honour

Iran has stepped up its protest over the knighthood awarded by Britain to Salman Rushdie, whose 1988 novel The Satanic Verses outraged many Muslims.

Iran's foreign ministry summoned the UK ambassador in Tehran and said the knighthood was a "provocative act".

Pakistan voiced similar protests, telling the UK envoy in Islamabad the honour showed the British government's "utter lack of sensitivity".

Britain denied that the award was intended to insult Islam.

'Improper act'

Iran summoned UK ambassador Geoffrey Adams to protest against the knighthood.


"This insulting, suspicious and improper act by the British government is an obvious example of fighting against Islam," Iran's Foreign Ministry Director for Europe, Ebrahim Rahimpour, was quoted as saying by the state-run Irna news agency.

"It has seriously wounded the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims and followers of other religions."

Mr Rahimpour added that Iran held the British government and Queen Elizabeth II "responsible for the circumstance of this provocation".

In Islamabad, British High Commissioner Robert Brinkley was called to Pakistan's foreign ministry several hours earlier.

I am thrilled and humbled to receive this great honour, and am very grateful that my work has been recognised in this way

Sir Salman Rushdie

The envoy was told that the honour countered attempts by both countries to build mutual understanding.

For his part, Mr Brinkley expressed "deep concern" over reported comments by Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Mohammad Ejaz ul-Haq, suggesting that the award could justify suicide attacks.

"If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad, his act is justified," the minister said, according to Reuters news agency.

The minister later clarified his statement, saying extremists could use it to justify attacks.

Pakistan's parliament passed a resolution on Monday condemning the award.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says the diplomatic row is heated but that so far it has stayed mostly within official circles.

Perceived blasphemy

Both Iran and Pakistan are Islamic republics with an overwhelmingly Muslim population which saw violent protests against The Satanic Verses in 1989.

A fatwa against Sir Salman was issued the same year by Iran's spiritual late leader Ayatollah Khomeini, calling for his execution.

The move forced Sir Salman to go into hiding.

Sir Salman, 60, was one of almost 950 people to appear on the Queen's Birthday Honours list, which is aimed at recognising outstanding achievement.

The Indian-born author's book was published in 1988.

It 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.

In 1998, the Iranian government said it would no longer support the fatwa, but some groups have said it is irrevocable.

The following year, Sir Salman returned to public life.

[Rasputin]

This past week, the Queens List was announced by Tony Blair’s Prime Ministerial Office; and Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses, was handed a Knighthood (presumably for Service to his adopted country [Britain] ... he is of Indian origin).

Rushdie, was of course, the Author of a book titled Satanic verses. According to the book: “Muhammad (Mahound in the book) added verses to the Qur'an accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings. According to the legend, Muhammad later revoked the verses, saying the devil tempted him to utter these lines to appease the Meccans (hence the Satanic verses). However, the narrator reveals to the reader that these disputed verses were actually from the mouth of the Archangel Gibreel.”

The book became very controversial and was banned in many Muslim countries. The leader of Iran’s Islamic Republic (at the time) Ayatollah Khomeini (who is dead now), proclaimed a death threat against Salman Rushdie.

Salman Rushdie has written many other books although none of the most recent books have sold as well as his earlier book (in the ‘80s). He has also received many literary awards, although no major awards have been bestowed to him in the recent past (except this knighthood).

A Knighthood was also bestowed early in the 20th century to the Founder of the Baha'i Faith Baha'u'llah’s son (an Iranian by birth) Abdu'l-Baha (apparently for his humanitarian work feeding the people of Haifa ... then part of Britain’s Palestinian territories). And ever since that day, the followers of the Baha’i faith in Iran (a religious minority) have been persecuted as British agents! In fact, after the revolution in 1979, religious thugs started rounding up Baha’is and in a similar manner to the Nazi’s imprisoned them, stole their houses and businesses ... .just simply persecuted them.

The British government, of all governments, should know that these types of awards (knighthoods) have real consequence and implications.

The simple point I am making is, that Rushdie is actually being rewarded for causing controversy in the Muslim world. It’s a simple stab at Muslims.

It’s one thing to protect free speech and protect Rushdie from death threats. That is absolutely correct. Any sort of religious intimidation and censorship are absolutely wrong and unwarranted. It’s totally another thing to reward someone for causing controversy in the Muslim world by deriding a religious text that Muslims believe is sacred. If the shoe was on the other foot (i.e. someone caused controversy about the bible), I do not think they would be awarded a Knighthood. It’s simple hypocrisy. Democratic and secular Governments and all self-respecting leaders have a responsibility to promote tolerance and respect for other faiths and beliefs.

But also recently, there have been events upon events, story after story of outright derision against Muslims (and Iranians). Consider media anger and abhorrent statements about a new Muslim representative in Congress: CNN’s Beck comes right out and says “I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." i.e. if you’re a Muslim, you must be the enemy.

Or consider the Rev. Jerry Falwell (recently deceased), preacher, leading member of the Southern Baptist Convention, and spokesperson for America's Moral Majority proclaiming: "I think Muhammad was a terrorist . . . " To call the holy man of a billion Muslims a "terrorist" on national television was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a swift move. While he apologized quietly, there was no real consequence to his statement, and as we all know it simply reflects a broader view among many in the West. There are roughly 20 million Baptists in the United States. Baptists are actually a branch of the Christian Protestant faith. The Church of England is a Protestant Church also, with the Queen as its titular head.

Yet another example, of Western derision is the constant reporting of deaths in the ‘War on Terrorism’: It is always how many Americans have died ... but rarely (if ever) how many Iraqis have died. It’s as if Iraqi deaths do not count. As one Arab leader declared: “In Western minds our lives do not count ... one American death is equal to one thousand Iraqi’s deaths”. And it is not just now during the war, it has been a constant feature of western reporting ... whether it is the relative number of deaths in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (one Jewish death = 100 Palestinian deaths) or the Iran/Iraq war where literally a million people died with almost no media coverage and while there was regular western arm sales to both sides to continue the war (including ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ... i.e. intermediaries for Chemical Weapons).

Perhaps Muslims should be grateful. The media does not even cover deaths in Africa. Over a million people died in Rwanda before there was even one line in a newspaper or any coverage on the evening news. As Africans rightly point out, in the West ... one Americans death is = 1 Million Africans deaths. In America, the evening news is basically is all about America and then if we're lucky we'll get one line about Israel and/or Iraq. Apparently nothing else matters to Americans.

These are just a few examples, but in my day to day dialogues, I have come across story after story of ordinary Muslims losing promotions, being sidelines by their local communities, being derided or just simply looked down on. Western colleagues or communities. I chuckle every time I meet an Iranian and I look at their business card ... and I see a name like “Mo” (its actually Mohamad) or “Ray” (and its actually Reza) or its “Fred” (and its actually Fereidoon) or its ... They are all scared, hiding their identities to simply survive in the United States.

The irony of all this, is that it was the West (The United States along with its stalwart ally ... Britain) that actually placed these Islamic fanatics in power. President Jimmy Carter, a devout Southern Baptist, actually helped topple the Shah of Iran and put religious fanatics in power in Iran (and even helped start up the Taliban resistance in Afghanistan ... to fight Russian communists).

As one friend confided to me: If I stay here in America my throat will eventually be cut off and if I go to Iran my throat will be cut off. Americans hate us. And the fanatics in Iran hate us. They hate us and we have nowhere to go.

Finally, I think any self respecting; democratically elected government in the Muslim world should cut off relations with the United States and its European Allies. Acts of blatant hatred ... like Rushdie’s Knighthood should not be tolerated. Iran should cut off relations with Britain immediately.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Islam is actually the fastest growing religion in Europe and the second fastest in the United States. Those who promote hatred and polarization will one day pay the price from within.

And the stench of hypocrisy is over whelming. Christians after all fundamentally believe in the same tenets as Muslims i.e. spreading the Love of God, Loving thy Neighbor and spreading good will. For now it is clear they hate us ... and they have the audacity to wonder why the terrorists are recruiting more than ever and why there is so much hatred against them? Is this the best path we can all take towards promoting peace and prosperity?

[Rasputin]

Salman Rushdie 'to divorce' again

Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie and his Indian actress wife, Padma Lakshmi are divorcing at her request, Mr Rushdie's spokeswoman says.
The news comes two weeks after the author received a knighthood, sparking protests by Muslims in many parts of the world.

Sir Salman and Lakshmi married in a Hindu ceremony in New York in 2004.

The Satanic Verses, published in 1988, was condemned in the Islamic world because of its perceived blasphemy.

Respect plea

"Salman Rushdie has agreed to divorce his wife, Padma Lakshmi, because of her desire to end their marriage," Mr Rushdie's spokeswoman Jin Auh said in a statement, Reuters news agency reports.

"He asks that the media respect his privacy at this difficult time."

Lakshmi is Rushdie's fourth wife. It is her first marriage.

The author went into hiding in the 1980s after Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa for "insulting Islam" in The Satanic Verses.

[Rasputin]

German Writer Wants to Read 'Satanic Verses' in Cologne Mosque

German writer Günter Wallraff wants to stir things up in his hometown of Cologne. He is proposing reading the 'Satanic Verses' in a controversial new mosque. The religious foundation building the mosque says it'll think about it.

Günter Wallraff doesn't think of himself as a provocateur, he justs wants to get a dialogue going and to put the integration of Muslims in German society to the test. His method is somewhat radical. The well known German writer has said he wants to read aloud from "The Satanic Verses" in a Cologne mosque.

Wallraff denies that his proposal to read from a book regarded by many Muslims as blasphemous is a provocation. Rather, he says, he just wanted the Rushdie book to finally be discussed within the Muslim community.

The mosque in Cologne is being built by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB) and Wallraff says he wants to take the organization at its word when it says the new mosque is to be a place for transparency and dialogue. Some local residents have opposed plans (more...) to build the mosque, including the atheist novelist of Jewish heritage Ralph Giordano, who has said Muslims should learn secular values and integrate into Germany.

The Muslim community is reacting with patience to the writer's unorthodox suggestion. DITIB's cultural officer Be*** Alboga told the DPA news agency that the offer had not been rejected outright, but that it was up to the DITIB board to respond. And Wallraff told SPIEGEL ONLINE that Alboga had contacted him and told him that his suggestion merited serious discussion.

Wallraff said he envisaged a "discussion event and not a classic reading." He wants the passages that have been criticized in the Rushdie book to play a central role in any reading and for them to be translated into Turkish. "That would be an important signal to the Islamic fundamentalists." The writer told DPA that he wasn't scared and would demand police protection so that he could read "The Satanic Verses" out loud in the mosque.

The reaction to the prospect of a Rushdie reading in the middle of a mosque has been mixed.

Actress Sibel Kekilli, star of the hit German film "Head On," said: "It's fundamentally important to confront Muslims with freedom of speech. But I wonder if the person who reads the book aloud would not endanger his or her life as a result." Speaking to SPIEGEL ONLINE she said: "I would find it an interesting idea if the mosque were to take part in the event -- after all, both sides have to adapt if there is not going to be gratuitous provocation."

Ekin Deligöz, a member of the German parliament for the Green Party was cautious in his response to the Wallraff suggestion: "On the one hand I find it very brave, and if it really -- as Günter Wallraff says -- takes place as a joint event with the mosque, then it would be a good signal for a modern Islam which is capable of dialogue." He told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "But if on the other hand it is just a protest event that is only intended to provoke, then on balance little would come out of it."

Henryk M. Broder, a columnist with DER SPIEGEL, criticized Wallraff's idea as "actionism" saying: "The issue isn't about whether you can read 'The Satanic Verses' in a mosque or not. After all, it would never occur to anyone to serve non-kosher food in a synagogue or pork meat in a Catholic church on Good Friday."

The furore over "The Satanic Verses" has now been reignited by the decision last month to grant knighthood to Rushdie. Rushdie lived under police protection for several years after the late Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in 1989 calling for his death because of his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in the book. The Indian writer is a friend of Wallraff's and often stayed in the writer's Cologne apartment in the 1990s.

On Friday DITIB reiterated its condemnation of the death threats against Rushdie. The Turkish religious organization announced that "Islam is a peaceful and moderate religion ... That under no circumstances condoned threats or the use of violence." But it added that Muslims expected a respectful approach when it came to their religious feelings.

[Rasputin]

When an author, artist or a film-maker is attacked, the assumption most people make is that the assailants hate the person in question. This is not true.

Most assailants, whether they are bigots, religious fundamentalists, old-world conservatives or merely unemployed, have good reason to love the objects of their wrath. Without an M F Husain to offend their sensibilities, entire cadres of a certain political party would be out of business. Without a Taslima Nasreen, obscure Muslim clerics and little-known political organisations would never get their 15 minutes of fame.

The assault on Taslima Nasreen happened at a book launch in Hyderabad on August 8, when three MLAs from the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) disrupted the event by shouting threats and attempting to physically attack the author. This has been followed by a general baying for Nasreen’s blood by Muslim clerics in Calcutta, the revival of a fatwa against her, and the offer of sums ranging from Rs 50,000 (for anyone who can blacken Nasreen’s face) to Rs 1,00,000 and “unlimited”, but unspecified, rewards for anyone who kills her.

Nasreen, who has been unsuccessfully seeking asylum in India ever since her writings provoked the wrath of religious fundamentalists in Bangladesh, has remained calm. Her tourist visa has just been reissued, allowing her to stay in this country for another six months, and she has announced that she is contemplating a sequel to Lajja, the book that turned her into a permanent exile.

Think of similar incidents of this nature — an assault on a filmmaker (the attack on Deepa Mehta, the recent disruption of a screening of Anand Patwardhan’s War and Peace) or the banning of a book (Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses) and look at the manner in which we react in India.

The first reaction is a furious debate over the work itself. After sixty years of Independence, we are not yet comfortable, in our democracy, with the idea that freedom of speech is an absolute freedom, and that artistic freedom is essential. So our reactions, even “liberal” reactions, are nervous, often tentative. There’s nothing wrong with Deepa Mehta’s film on Hindu widows, but what if it provokes violence, how can we be responsible for that? Of course Salman Rushdie has the right to think freely as a novelist, but his work has after all offended religious sentiments, shouldn’t he have been more responsible? Taslima Nasreen is free to suggest that religions oppress women and that the holy book of the faith she was born into is obsolete, but shouldn’t she have expected strong reactions?

“Responsibility” is seen as an authorial function: few people see that those who may be offended have an equal responsibility, which is to set out their arguments in a way that at the very least, does not include physical violence.

All of this sends out a very strong message to writers and other creative artists: you are free to write whatever you want, provided you are willing to bear the consequences alone and unprotected by the might of the state.

The way we really feel about writers — our own and those who have come to a free, democratic country in search of shelter — can be seen in what we do not do. The people who make death threats are often powerful. They may be religious or political leaders who wield considerable force and influence. But they are also citizens of this country, and in theory at least, subject to the laws of this land. If you make a death threat in a public forum, you should be arrested. If you attack another citizen who has done you no physical harm, you should be arrested. If you threaten to hold an entire country to ransom by declaring that you will unleash violent mobs if a particular painting is not destroyed, if a particular book is not banned, if a particular author is not silenced, you and your mobs should be arrested as a danger to common citizens.

How often, in these sixty years of this independence that we pride ourselves on, have we seen the real culprits punished? How often, instead, have we effectively licensed and condoned the right of those whose “sentiments have been offended” to extract retribution?

The weakest argument, not from a moral but from a logical standpoint, is that of the religious fundamentalists — of any religion. If you believe as a matter of faith that a certain book is blasphemous, and therefore dangerous for the faithful to read, then you have a simple solution. Tell the faithful that they must not read it. If they are truly faithful, they will obey, and be saved from the perdition you fear for them. If they are not of the faith, or have lapsed in their faith, then to read a blasphemous book will only damn them a little bit further. That is really, as a mindful officer of the faith, none of your business—your only concern is to ensure the obedience of the faithful.

Leave the rest of us, writers and readers, alone.

[Rasputin]

دومین باری است که سلمان رشدی برای شرکت در گفتگویی رو در رو به هلند می آید. اولین بار سال 1999 و در "مرکز بورس برلاخه " آمستردام بود و این بار در شهر لاهه. مصاحبه گر اول گرچه به زبان انگلیسی مسلط تر بود، اما آشنائی اش با کارهای رشدی آنقدر کم بود که مجبور شد چند متلک را از نوسنده بپذیرد و به روی خود نیاورد. این بار اما مصاحبه گر، سردبیر مجله فری ندرلند" (هلند آزاد) بود که کتاب های رشدی را بهتر از خودش به یاد دارد. سوال هایی که از شخصت های کتاب ها می شود؛ نویسنده را به فکر وا می دارد زیرا نمی داند اشاره مصاحبه گر به کدام اثر است.



روز جمعه 23 نوامبر (2 آذر)، سلمان رشدی نویسنده هندی تبار انگلیسی تحت تدایبر شدید امنیتی وارد سالن شد و در یکی از دو مبل چرمی سیاه رنگ بزرگی که روی سن بود، فرورفت. بشاش تر، زبرو زرنگ تر و گستاخ تر از قبل است. شاید به این دلیل که آن زمان شبح فتوای خمینی بر سرش سنگین تر از امروز بود. با این وجود مسائل امنیتی با همان شدت قبل اجرا شد. این بار حتی محل برگزاری جلسه تا 24 ساعت قبل از آن برای عموم فاش نشده بود.

پاسخ های صریح، طنز آمیز و گاه طعنه آمیز سلمان رشدی در سراسر مصاحبه، موجب دستپاچگی مصاحبه گر می شود. اما با این حال رشته کلام در دست هر دو باقی می ماند. ادبیات، به عنوان موضوع محوری گفتگو انتخاب شده و هر دو طرف این انتخاب را حتی الامکان پاس می دارند.

در پاسخ به این سوال که "چه تو را به هلند آورد؟" سلمان رشدی جواب داد: "بریتیشش ایر ویز" و بعد از خنده حضار، با شیطنت ادامه داد: " از شوخی بگذریم. آنچه مرا به این جا آورد این بود که 20 سال است که از من مدام دعوت می کنند تا در این برنامه شرکت کنم. گفتم دیگر وقتش است که دعوت را بپذیرم" این نوع جواب ها، در سراسر مصاحبه ادامه می یابد.


ساحره فلورانس

سلمان رشدی از کتابی که در دست انتشار دارد، خبر داد. کتابی که قرار است در بهار سال 2008 (1387) به بازاد بیاید و "ساحره فلورانس" (1) نام دارد. می گوید: "من همواره شیفته فرهنگ هند و ایتالیا بودم. در این رمان سعی کرده ام که این دو را در هم بیآمیزم و وقایع قرن 16 این دو کشور را به تصویر بکشم."

علاوه بر شیفتگی نویسنده به این دو فرهنگ، او به شباهت هایی نیز اشاره می کند: "من در مطالعه تاریخ هند و ایتالیا در دوران مورد نظرم در رمان، متوجه شباهت هایی شده ام. آن چه در ایتالیا در شرف تکوین بود، در تاریخ و فرهنگ هند نیز مشاهده می شود. در دروان رنسانس، مکاتب فلسفی انسانی متعددی در هند در حال شکل گیری بودند."

یکی از جنبه های شگفت انگیز برای سلمان رشدی شباهت هایی است که در دوران رنسانس در زندگی زنان طبقات و اقشار بالائی دیده می شود. می گوید: "زنان طبقات بالا در دوران رنسانس، اسیر و دربند بودند و درباریان اداره امور را در دست داشتند. در واقع از زندگی روزمره در دوران رنسانس، سکس چکه می کرده است "

رشدی خود را نویسنده ای "ولگار" می نامد. در توضیح می گوید: "ریشه لاتین "ولگار" به معنای مردم است و در رمان نویسی، به مسائل روزمره مردم پرداخته می شود. مسائلی مانند سکس، مرگ، زندگی، شادی، غم؛ خواب و رویا."

حرامزاده تاریخ

"حرامزاده تاریخ ام "، زیرا در هند متولد شده و هم اکنون در کشوری زندگی می کنم که زادگاهم را زمانی به عنوان مستعمره تحت کنترل داشته است.

فرهنگ هند، موضوع اکثر کتاب های سلمان رشدی را تشکیل می دهد. می گوید به مرور زمان شیفتگی اش به هند بیشتر و عمیق تر می شود. پدربزگش که پزشکی مذهبی بوده، در زندگی و شکل گیری شخصیت و افکارش نقش به سزایی داشته است. می گوید با وجود این که پدربزگم مذهبی بود و هر ساله به مکه می رفت اما وقتی منکر وجود خدا می شدم، با صبر زیادی با من وارد بحث می شد. این نحوه برخورد به نظر مخالف برای من آموزنده بوده و سعی کرده ام آن را به کار گیرم.

آزادی بیان مطلق است

آیا آزادی بیان مطلق است؟ در پاسخ به این سوال، سلمان رشدی می گوید: بله. باید مطلق باشد. اما در شرایط فعلی وضعیتی پیش آمده است که فرصت برای چالش نظری نیست. فضائی برای این گونه مخالفت ها در نظر گرفته نشده است. در حالی که باید به راحتی حرف زد. تفاوت بین انسان و حیوان، زبان و گفتار است. از آن باید استفاده کرد. او ضمن انتقاد به فرهنگی که در اروپا رایج شده می گوید: "اروپا از این که در گفتار و بحث، افراد یکدیگر را مورد اهانت قرار دهند، به هراس افتاده است. این فرهنگ، فرهنگ دفاعی است."

[Rasputin]

آیات شیطانی به روی صحنه می رود


انتشار کتاب آیات شیطانی موجب تظاهراتی علیه سلمان رشدی در اکثر کشورهای مسلمان شد
پلیس آلمان می گوید برای تئاتری که قرار است از امروز نمایشنامه ای را که بر اساس کتاب "آیات شیطانی" تهیه شده به روی صحنه آورد، تدابیر امنیتی اضافی فراهم آورده است.
پس از آن که آیت الله خمینی بنیانگذار جمهوری اسلامی ایران در سال 1989 کتاب آیات شیطانی را کفرآمیز خواند و فتوای قتل سلمان رشدی نویسنده آن را به اتهام کفرگویی صادر کرد، سلمان رشدی ناچار شد مدت 10 سال در اختفا زندگی کند.

مقامات پتسدام، شهری در نزدیکی برلین که نمایشنامه مورد بحث در آن جا به روی صحنه خواهد رفت، می گویند اطلاعی درباره این که گروه های مسلمان در نظر دارند در مقابل تئاتر دست به تظاهرات بزنند دریافت نکرده اند.

از سلمان رشدی دعوت شده که در مراسم اولین شب اجرای نمایشنامه حضور یابد ولی معلوم نیست که او این دعوت را پذیرفته یا نه.

این نمایشنامه هنگامی روی صحنه می رود که انتشار فیلم ضداسلامی موسوم به فتنه از طریق شبکه اینترنت، محکومیتهای گسترده ای در سطح جهان به همراه آورده است.

این فیلم که ساخته خیرت ویلدرز، نماینده راستگرای مجلس هلند است امکان پخش از طریق شبکه های تلویزیونی نیافت اما از روز پنجشنبه هفته گذشته از طریق برخی سایتهای اینترنتی در دست قرار گرفت.

نخست وزیر هلند ابراز امیدواری کرد که فیلم فتنه موجب واکنش خشم آمیز مسلمانان نشود

یان پتر بالکننده، نخست وزیر هلند طی سخنانی که از تلویزیون این کشور پخش شد، پخش اینترنتی فیلم فتنه را بشدت محکوم کرده و گفته بود که این فیلم هیچ هدفی جز توهین به اعتقادات گروهی از مردم دنبال نمی کند.

نخست وزیر هلند در عین حال ابراز امیدواری کرده بود که این فیلم به بروز واکنش خشونت آمیز منجر نشود.

بان کی مون، دبیرکل سازمان ملل متحد این فیلم را توهین آمیز خوانده و پخش اینترنتی آن را بشدت محکوم کرد.

انتشار فیلم فتنه در کشورهای مسلمان و جوامع اسلامی واکنش های تندتری به همراه داشته است.

سازمان کنفرانس اسلامی تنها هدف این فیلم را ایجاد تنش و خصومت میان پیروان ادیان و اعتقادات مختلف و به خطر انداختن صلح و ثبات در جهان دانسته است.

[Rasputin]

Salman Rushdie is knighted by the Queen

Salman Rushdie received his knighthood from the Queen today amid fears it could trigger a backlash among Muslim extremists.

Rushdie, 61, who was knighted for services to literature, has lived since 1989 under the shadow of an Iranian fatwa calling for his death over "The Satanic Verses".

When the knighthood was announced last year it sparked condemnation from a number of countries and a Pakistani government minister suggested the award justified suicide bombings.

Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri warned that the terror network was preparing a "precise response" to Britain's decision to transform Rushdie into "Sir Salman".

In the ensuing furore British government ministers said that they were sorry if people had been upset by the honour but stressed it was for a lifelong body of work and would not apologise for the award.

Mr Rushdie, asked today by reporters about Satanic Verses, said: "I really have no regrets about any of my work. This is, as I say, an honour not for any specific book but for a very long career in writing, and I'm happy to see that recognised.

"It's been a long time. My first novel was published 33 years ago, but I think the thing you hope to do as a writer is leave behind a shelf of interesting books, and it's great just to have that work recognised. At this stage, you know, it's certainly not a day to talk about controversy. It's a day for myself and my family to celebrate this."

After the announcement of the knighthood last year, Iran said the death sentence still stands. "The stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to this issue has not changed from what was put forward by the Imam Khomeini," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said.

Rushdie was forced into hiding after Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa calling for his death, claiming his book insulted Islam. He was granted a 24-hour police guard but still had to move house repeatedly and could not even tell his children where he lived. Copies of the book were burnt on the streets of Bradford.

Rushdie's second novel, "Midnight's Children", won the Booker Prize in 1981 and was named the best novel in 25 years of the prize in 1993. He is also a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature.

[Rasputin]

Salman Rushdie's epic novel has been named Best of the Booker on the 40th anniversary of the prestigious literary prize. How might those who cannot fathom or finish it still appear erudite? By reading a precis of course.

And here is where we need your help.

Midnight's Children weighs in at a hefty 672 pages, but we want the story in 67 words.

In this time-poor age, not every reader will get round to finishing it - or even starting it.

The panel of judges whittled down the past winners to a shortlist of six, which included JM Coetzee's Disgrace, Pat Barker's The Ghost Road and Peter Carey's Oscar and Lucinda.

But anyone could vote for the winner, whether they had read the books or not. So it's possible that some voters simply opted for the man who already has two Bookers under his belt.

Midnight's Children is not the easiest of reads. The tale told by a child born at the moment of Indian independence is densely written, political and full of magic realism.

Have you read it? As a public service to those who have not, send us your precis in no more than 67 words using the form below.

Here is a selection of the best:

Dr. Adam Aziz breaks his nose praying to Allah and loses faith. His daughter Amina gives birth to THE boy in the moment of independence. Saleem the psychic and Shiva the fighter, swapped in hospital by Mary Pereira: a nose and knees, alpha and omega. Don't forget Saleem Sinai: lying about your fertility is bad luck. Good thing Mary Pereira makes the best Mango Chutney in India.
Ok Os, Los Chorrillos, Venezuela

Saleem Sinai is born on the stroke of midnight, the same moment independent India is born, the child of many mothers. With his gift of telepathy he links up the network of other magical children born that night, including his nemesis also born exactly at midnight. His life parallel's India's birth, pain and growth; his survival and impotency leaves a similar legacy for a vast, contradictory nation.
Sanam, Dhaka, Bangladesh

A bloke's born in India at the moment of independence. He's got some kind of magic nose. His life parallels events in the subcontinent. It's like an intellectual Forrest Gump. No, it's alright because you learn quite a bit about the recent history of the region.
Richard, Marlow, UK

Born the minute India and Pakistan come into existence, Muslim Saleem and Hindu Shiva are two boys who were switched at birth. Saleem - in reality the illegitimate child of an English father and Hindu mother - tells the meandering story of his family and his memory of events. Woven together by the metaphors of chutney and bastards, the tale is a "factual-fantastical" allegory of India's post-independence history.
Nandita Batra, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico

Midnight's Children combines the rich scents of fruits stewing with the stink of street decay and the messiness of a vast rebirth.
Julia Barello, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

It's a story about a boy, born at the midnight point of India's independence, and who is switched at birth. Growing up in India which is struggling for political stability. The boy is ugly, has a huge nose and chronic catarrh. (Autobiographical, maybe?). He basically hears the voices of other children born at midnight, until he has his nose fixed. And then they go away!
Liz, Kingston

14 August 1947, at the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. The freedom gave birth to two boys. Through the eyes of one boy you will be guided through Bharat and feel what the Indians felt after the independence. With a beautiful masala of poverty, anger, romance and unawareness. The power of this novel is the honesty.
Radjinderkoemar Balkaran, Den Haag, The Netherlands

Quasi religious/magical/political exploration of a society through the condensed experience of one Anglo-Indian drip-nosed telepathic narrator.
Tony Nicholls, Swindon

[Rasputin]

سلمان رشدي گفته است كه احتمال دارد كتابي درباره فتواي صادر شده از سوي آيت الله خميني در مورد انتشار كتاب آيات شيطاني بنويسد.
به دنبال انتشار كتاب آيات شيطاني، آيت الله خميني، رهبر پيشين ايران فتواي قتل سلمان رشدي را صادر كرد كه با اعتراض هاي بين المللي روبرو شد.

سلمان رشدي به دنبال صدور اين فتوا نه سال در اختفا زندگي كرد. او تجربه اين نه سال را "بسيار دشوار" خوانده است.

او مي گويد: "گروهي به من مي گويند كه داستان اين سال ها را بگويم، شايد اين كار را انجام دهم."

آقاي رشدي به بي بي سي گفته است كه دوران انزواي او، سرشار از محدوديت و مشكل هم براي او و خانواده اش و هم براي ناشرانش بود.

او مي گويد فكر نمي كند كه چنين وضعيتي براي او باز پيش آيد. او به عنوان مثال به نمايشنامه اي اشاره مي كند كه سال پيش بر مبناي كتاب جنجالي او در آلمان به صحنه در آمد و اعتراض چنداني هم به دنبال نداشت.

سلمان رشدي بر اهميت اينترنت به عنوان ابزاري براي كاهش شكاف فرهنگي ياد مي كند و مي گويد "هر قدر كه از جنبه هاي فرهنگي غرب براي مردم، مثلا ايران و چين آشكار مي شود، آنها بيشتر به دنبال اين فرهنگ مي روند."

كتاب آيات شيطاني آقاي رشدي احساسات بسياري از مسلمانان جهان را جريحه دار كرد و در سال ۱۹۸۹ حتي جايزه اي براي سرش تعيين شد.

اما اين نويسنده هندي الاصل كه از سال ۱۹۹۹ بار ديگر زندگي عادي را از سر گرفت در اين مدت از جنجال پرهيز نكرده است.

او كه فرزند يك بازرگان موفق هندي است در سال ۱۹۴۷ در خانواده اي مسلمان در شهر بمبئي به دنيا آمد.

سلمان رشدي كه در دانشگاه كمبريج انگلستان تحصيل كرده است، نخستين رمان خود، "گريموس"، را در سال ۱۹۷۵ چاپ كرد كه چندان مورد توجه قرار نگرفت.

اما دومين تلاش او در داستان نويسي - بچه هاي نيمه شب - او را به شهرت ادبي رساند.

كتاب چهارم او - آيات شيطاني كه در سال ۱۹۸۸ منتشر شد، نبردي كيهاني ميان خير و شر را ترسيم مي كند و عالم خيال، فلسفه و طنز را در هم مي آميزد.

اما اين كتاب بلافاصله پس از چاپ به خاطر آنچه مسلمانان ارائه تصويري كفرآميز از پيامبر اسلام دانستند محكوم شد.

كتاب در بسياري كشورهاي اسلامي ممنوع شد و در سال ۱۹۸۹، آيت الله خميني بنيانگذار جمهوري اسلامي، با صدور فتوايي خواستار قتل سلمان رشدي شد. اين فتوا رسما تا سال ۱۹۹۸ به قوت خود باقي بود.

سلمان رشدي كه پس از آن فتوا عملا مثل زنداني و تحت محافظت پليس زندگي مي كرد به نگارش رمان و چندين رساله ادامه داد.

او سال پيش از سوي ملكه اليزابت دوم، لقب شواليه دريافت كرد.

رمان "بچه هاي نيمه شب" سلمان رشدي، در ميان كتاب هايي كه تا كنون برنده جايزه بوكر شده اند، مقام اول را كسب كرد.