Sir Salman Rushdie
Jun 22nd, 2007, in News, by PatungSalman Rushdie’s knighthood has some people bothered.
Ahmed Salman Rushdie, who spent almost ten years in hiding following a death fatwa by Iran’s spiritual leader after publication of his controversial book, The Satanic Verses, and widely thought of as a barely readable author, was awarded a knighthood in Queen Elizabeth II’s birthday honours list on June 17th for services to literature, giving him the right to be called “Sir Salman Rushdie”.
Many protests have been heard around the world although in far-away Indonesia the news of Rushdie’s knighthood seems to have taken a little longer to filter through to Antara, and get them on the phone to various Muslim leaders seeking reactions.
Sir Salman Rushdie.
First, on 21st June, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) chairman for Central Java, Ibnu Djarir, asked the government to seek an explanation from the British ambassador in Jakarta.
Britain has to understand the feelings of Muslims about “The Satanic Verses”.
People who insulted holy books did not deserve to be called “Sir”, he said. republika
Djarir’s senior in Jakarta, Amidhan, complained:
For a long time Muslims have been downtrodden, attacked, played off against each other, and now provoked. I don’t know what’s going on with this world.
Rushdie might be a fine writer, he said, but he used his gifts to insult prophet Muhammad. He set a bad precedent:
He gave courage to people in Switzerland, Holland, and Denmark to insult Islam, it’s really a shame that someone like him would get an award.
Amidhan hoped the British government would revoke the knighthood. antara
Tarmizi Taher of the Dewan Masjid Indonesia (DMI), Mosques’ Council, a former minister of religion, said the award was proof countries like Britain didn’t want to live on friendly terms with others and didn’t care about others’ feelings. He said however it wasn’t necessary to call the British ambassador for an explanation. antara
Hasyim Muzadi of the Nahdlatul Ulama, in perhaps one of his more paranoiac moments, said the knighthood was a planned insult to Islam, done “by design”, part of a wider plot against the Muslim world.
I can’t show you who is behind it, but it appears there is a deliberate conspiracy to make Islam look bad.
Islam had been insulted in many ways recently, whether the Quran, Muhammad, mosques, or other targets, and the Rushdie affair was just another example.
Hasyim Muzadi.
However he advised Muslims not to react in an emotional way.
We have to oppose the attack on Islam in the field of opinion, not with violence.
Muslims should strive to show the true, friendly and peaceful face of Islam, he said. antara
67 Comments on “Sir Salman Rushdie”
-
sm4lange says:
Let the “shouting” Indonesian Muslims shout as much as they want because this is democracy and there isn’t much that can be done as it is the right of the British government and any governments to award a Knighthood or medal/s to any of their subjects or citizens. As a Muslim myself, I am not disturb by this issue, as religion belongs to the individual. Mr. Ibnu Djarir request to seek an explaination was just to please the “shouting” crowds and he knows that nothing much can be done on the issue of a Knighthood being conferred on Salman Rushdie.
-
Janma says:
Dear julita,
I am not searching for things to criticize the Catholic church…. I’m just saying that they had their day of mistakes too, and that was indeed excaberated by the middle ages and peoples attitudes at the time. They got over it, but now we are dealing with islam trying to revert to mediaeval principles and it’s just not going to work.
I know these mistakes were in the past… I’m not holding it against them, though the victims of their injustice may….
the spainiards went to mexico to look for gold, but they dressed up their invasion in religious clothes… it was alright to take over mexico and make war with them to convert them to the true faith…. even though they also wanted wealth, their religion gave them the high road. I know it’s a long time ago, that was my point…. that those mistakes were made a long time ago and that those who promote medieval relgions like islam are falling into the same trap and the world has moved on in many places.
As for Judas…. I think that without him Jesus wouldn’t have been able to die on the cross for your sins, so you should thank him. Maybe Jesus wanted him to do that…. ever think of that? I think Judas was his most trusted man. -
Denny Crane says:
Lock and Load for Sir Salman Rushdie…
The Jakarta Post published this in its opinion column, quite interesting, particularly the style of the writing.
Salman Rushdie is so yesterday
Sunan J. Rustam, Durham
It was interesting when, in 1988, Sir Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses and was issued with a fatwa calling for his death by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in the following year.
For nine years, Sir Salman Rushdie lived under around-the-clock protection provided by the British government, at an estimated cost of Å“10 million, until 1998, when the Ayatollah stated that Iran would neither “help nor hinder” anyone trying to carry out the fatwa. Not to mention the fact that Britain renewed its diplomatic ties with Iran soon after the decision not to implement the fatwa was made public.
It is provoking to learn how Sir Ahmad Salman Rushdie de-sanctified religions by virtue of fictional discourse in the 560 pages of The Satanic Verses, let alone the conditions in which he was brought up as a Muslim in a Hindu country. As the character of Mahound may have well been considered funny by some non-Muslim readers simply because he matches the stereotypes of the Prophet Muhammad, this is not the case in the Muslim world.
It is a matter of fact that the Muslim world upholds highly the sanctity of the Prophet. Histoshi Igarashi and Ettore Capriolo, both the translators, and William Nygaard, the publisher of The Satanic Verses had to learn this the hard way.
It is understandable to hear that in backing Jack Straw’s comments on Muslim women wearing veils, Sir Salman Rushdie stated that veils “suck” as they are a symbol of the “limitation of women”. He also warned against Islamic “totalitarianism” during the Danish cartoons controversy.
It is pretty obvious to note the comments he made when given his knighthood from the British queen. “I am thrilled and humbled to receive this great honor, and am very grateful that my work has been recognized in this way.” He then compared it to his statement on Tony Blair when Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, received his knighthood in 2005. “Tony Blair’s decision to knight him and treat him as the acceptable face of ‘moderate’, ‘traditional’ Islam is either a sign of his government’s penchant for religious appeasement or a demonstration of how Mr. Blair’s options really are.”
Rushdie then added that “If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Mr. Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem”.
It is less interesting to look at the response of the Muslim world to Rushdie’s knighthood, as we know how controversial it is. The knighthood of Rushdie further underlines the old conspiracy theory of Islam versus the West and the lack of sensitivity of the Western world towards Islam against the basic right of freedom of speech. As Voltaire once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Death may become Sir Salman Rushdie, but that certainly doesn’t mean he’s in any hurry to get there.
It is boring to read how religious issues are being manipulated in any form for interests other than the religion itself. The Muslim world will always be sensitive and cautious when it comes to their teachings and the Western world will most of the time apply their own yardstick to see the Muslim world.
It is true when they say that conflicts will always exist throughout human life. Nevertheless, history consistently reveals similar pretexts with respect to religious conflicts. Truly there has to be something that we can learn from history than just repeating it bluntly.
It is so yesterday to talk about Sir Salman Rushdie. From the start, the story line of Salman Rushdie has always been with controversy. It would be controversial if his story were not controversial, from The Satanic Verses to his personal views on Islam to international recognition of his work.
He may win a Nobel Prize someday for his work, but then again what’s so special about that? It’s just another controversy on Salman Rushdie’s controversial story, there’s nothing new about it. May be it is “Sir” to you Mr. Salman Rushdie, but the world moves on.
The writer is a student of the LLM Course in University of Durham, United Kingdom and can be reached at sunanjr@gmail.com.
-
midwest joe says:
I don’t care whether Elizabeth II awarded sir or sur or whatever title to salman rushdie. Why should we care about him?
-
Odinius says:
This issue is a big “who cares” for me.
Elton John is a knight. That should give you an idea of how non-meaningful the designation is.
I feel bad for salman rushdie. He wrote a book that people who did not even bother to read it condemned him to death for.
So now he’s a knight, so I feel sorry for all the people so insecure about their beautiful faith that this very fact leads them to debase and insult it by mob violence.
-
Julita says:
Just return from a wonderful vacation.
Thanks Janma for your posting because it gives me the opportunity to share the truth with my fellow believers and friends about this beautiful, rich Catholic Church. It has all what other worldly religions have in total and much, much more. Will come up with it sometime.
Also be assured that what I say in this blog, I study/read first. I am not supposed to lie even to defend my own Faith. As one of you said about a gold card, yes I will loose it because of lying.
Janma you were talking about aborigines, the Aztec Mexico? No problem.
The Aztec before their conversion: Raiding and warring often began simply to collect captives for use in sacrificial offerings to the principal Aztec god, Huitzilpochti.
Best Known Features: In modern times, the Aztec is best known for human sacrifices. On special occasions, a slave was sacrificed. His flesh would be elaborately dressed and would be the center ornament of the banquet. Cannibalism was not a daily occurrence in the Aztec life, but it was common on special religious and social occasions. Human sacrifices were necessary to honor the gods and to perpetuate human existence. They believed that humans were responsible for the pleasure or displeasure of the gods and, therefore, they aimed to make sure that the deities were happy. TWENTY to FIFTY thousand people were sacrificed yearly.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/mesoamerica/aztec.html
PATRON OF THE AMERICAS, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE
December 12 (USA) When we reflect on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe we learn two important lessons, one of faith and one of understanding.
Missionaries who first came to Mexico with the conquistadors had little success in the beginning. After nearly a generation, only a few hundred Native Mexicans had converted to the Christian faith. Whether they simply did not understand what the missionaries had to offer or whether they resented these people who made them slaves, Christianity was not popular among the native people.
Then in 1531 miracles began to happen. Jesus’ own mother appeared to humble Juan Diego. The signs — of the roses, of the uncle miraculously cured of a deadly illness, and especially of her beautiful image on Juan’s mantle — convinced the people there was something to be considered in Christianity. Within a short time, six million Native Mexicans had themselves baptized as Christians.
From the above, you see how enthusiastic they were and welcome the Catholic Church; OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE became PATRON OF THE AMERICAS.Will, answer with pleasure why Catholics put Our Lady, Mother of Jesus on a pedestal. Jesus definitely loves her. The angel Gabriel came to her and said:” Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” Full of grace meaning immaculate without stain.
Janma: I know these mistakes were in the past”¦ I’m not holding it against them, though the victims of their injustice may”¦.
the spainiards went to mexico to look for gold, but they dressed up their invasion in religious clothes”¦Jlta: Good to know that you correct yourself from saying the Catholic Church to saying: “the spainiards went to mexico to look for gold, but they dressed up their invasion in religious clothes.” You know very well Spain is not Vatican.
Yes, Do come up with the many others you wanted to show me or ‘as you said’ to entertain readers because I know it would be like the above, with pleasure, I look into what you are posting about this beautiful Faith.
Janma: As for Judas”¦. I think that without him Jesus wouldn’t have been able to die on the cross for your sins, so you should thank him. Maybe Jesus wanted him to do that”¦. ever think of that? I think Judas was his most trusted man.
Jlta: Yes, ‘you think? I rather leave it in God’s hands. He is God, He does not need anybody else’s help.
Janma: Maybe Jesus wanted him to do that”¦. ever think of that?
Jlta: If Jesus wanted him to do that, Jesus would not have said:
Matthew 26, 24. The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
Janma: I think Judas was his most trusted man.
Jlta: Can you elaborate more?
Comment on “Sir Salman Rushdie”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2023
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Janma: If you can explain to me where the Christian love is in the two instances I mentioned in my post, namely the aboriginals and the inquisition, then I will look up further instances to amuse us”¦. they are many.
Jlta: Janma the following is the answer in regard to the Inguisition, it is in the web you can read further. I will be away for a while but will check when I am back. Yes, I don’t know why some like to to live in the pastm searching for something to blame the Catholic church. Though I am please to answer for all. In this blog, I have posted the ‘Crusade’, the ‘Holocaust’ and now the ‘Inquisition’ . I hope, I do don’t have to keep on repeating.
The Real Inquisition Investigating By Thomas F. Madden
When the sins of the Catholic Church are recited (as they so often are) the Inquisition figures prominently. People with no interest in European history know full well that it was led by brutal and fanatical churchmen who tortured, maimed, and killed those who dared question the authority of the Church..
In preparation for the Jubilee in 2000, Pope John Paul II wanted to find out just what happened during the time of the Inquisition’s (the institution’s) existence. In 1998 the Vatican opened the archives of the Holy Office to a team of 30 scholars from around the world. Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page to me that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all..
To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, j it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training “” something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ.
Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.
During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe.
As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many.