Doubtless as practiced by many, but not as urged by Pakistan's Religious Affairs minister, or Iranian members of parliament. From the Times Online:
Britain's decision to award Salman Rushdie a knighthood set off a storm of protest in the Islamic world today, with a Pakistani government minister giving warning that it could provide justification for suicide bomb attacks.
[Rushdie] has lived under police protection since the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran pronounced a fatwa (death sentence) on him over alleged blasphemies against Islam in his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses.
Today, Pakistan's religious affairs minister suggested that the knighthood was so grave an offence that any Muslim anywhere in the world would be justified in taking violent action.
"If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified," Mr ul-Haq told the National Assembly.
The minister, the son of Zia ul-Haq, the military dictator who died in a plane crash in 1988, later retracted his statement in parliament, then told the AFP news agency that he meant to say that knighting Rushdie would foster extremism.
"If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?" he said....
Well, how can we count on you to fight terrorism when you start by saying terrorism is justified, and then try to coerce our actions by threatening terrorism from your coreligionists?
Iran has also condemned Rushdie's knighthood, with hardliners issuing calls for his murder today. Mehdi Kuchakzadeh, a Tehran MP, declared: "It would be a hollow dream for the Queen of England to think that with such an action she could revive one of her mercenaries to oppose Islam... Rushdie died the moment the late Imam (Ayatollah Khomeini) issued the fatwa."
Backed by the Government, the Pakistan parliament today voted unanimously in favour of a resolution calling on Britain to withdraw the proferred knighthood because it is an insult to "the sentiments of Muslims across the world" and created religious hatred....
And what about the possibility that Muslim politicians' calls for murder and praise of terrorism is causing religious hostility, and even well-justified religious hatred for their fascistic brand of Islam? (I use "fascism" advisedly here, and I believe correctly.) "Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs who proposed the resolution, called Rushdie a blasphemer. 'Every religion should be respected,' he told the National Assembly." No, not your version of your religion: That should get no respect at all.
From later in the article:
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, today added his voice to the chorus of disapproval of the knighthood. "Salman Rushdie earned notoriety amongst Muslims for the highly insulting and blasphemous manner in which he portrayed early Islamic figures," he said. "The granting of a knighthood to him can only do harm to the image of our country in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Muslims across the world. Many will interpret the knighthood as a final contemptuous parting gift from Tony Blair to the Muslim world."
I would think more highly of Dr. Bari if he also made, alongside this, the following statement to the world's Muslims:
Those who call for Rushdie's murder earned notoriety amongs Westerners for the highly immoral and contemptible manner in which they have acted. The repetition of this call can only do harm to the image of our religion in the eyes of hundreds of millions of people across the world. Many will interpret the renewed calls for his death as another contemptuous gift from the Muslim world to those whose good opinion Muslims claim to seek.
If he has made such statements that weren't reported by the media, please let me know about them so I can properly report on them. Likewise, I would like to praise Muslim leaders who condemn the renewed calls for Rushdie's death, and the use of threats of Muslim terrorism as an attempt at coercion -- please e-mail me pointers to such praise, so I can give it proper credit.
Meantime, many thanks to the Queen and her advisors on this. There are times to be politic, and there are times to speak out in defense of what we believe -- religious freedom and resistance to would-be religious murderers -- even when restating our beliefs can rankle the sentiments of others.
Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "Radical" Attitudes About Protection for Religious Speech:
- Islam, Religion of Peace?
Do we advocate burying their suicide bombers in pig skin?
Heh. Your e-mail box must be overflowing by now, huh?
Doubtless? That's a joke, right? Ever been to a predominately muslim country? Islam is a cult of submission, submission to the dictates of a mass murdering pedophile.
Personally, I wish he would have rejected the knighthood because it is a royal title, and royalty is as scornworthy and destructive as religion.
The attention the knighthood has received is welcome. It illuminates the problem with maintaining that any text is sacred or holy, especially in Islam. The gist of the multicultural anti-knighthood argument is that authors should self-censor if they think their words may offend religious sensibilities, or else they should fear backlash. Its advocates believe that their religious bullying is justified and caused by modest Enlightenment values like freedom of speech and liberal democratic governance.
I only regret that the UK and other European countries have anti-incitement laws on the books. I much prefer our American tradition of presuming speech is okay, and carefully crafting limitations in the most extreme cases.
I'm not disagreeing with the premise, but Rushdie spoke at my school (the University of Arkansas) about two months ago now, and as much as admitted that much of his notoriety comes from the fatwa.
Hell, when he came here he had more security than when the Secretary of Agriculture had spoken here the week before.
But he sees it as not necessarily a positive, as all of the fame that comes from the Fatwa diverts attention from the fact that the "blasphemous" part of his writing was one dream sequence in one chapter of the Satanic Verses, and he feels that it distracts attention from his writing as a whole.
As far as him being knighted, I don't see why not. It seems england has made a practice of knighting important cultural figures in the past several decades, and Rushdie is certainly as great a cultural figure as many others that have been knighted, and arguably more so.
Well, I certainly do.
Can't hurt. Might help.
I agree that his notoreity has, in fact, come mostly from the fatwa. I only meant that had the fatwa never happened, his work would have been no less praiseworthy. People would have paid attention to him, but clearly he would not have been as Page One famous.
As for the bit about the knighthood, your response to me is pretty circular. I realize that British so-called kings and queens have handed them out to people who have contributed significantly to the culture. But there are lots of awards in the world that credit literary talent and courage, and he has received a number of them. My opposition to the knighthood is that it comes from a debauched, unnecessary, and malignant institution. People today who claim to be kings and queens of anything honor absolutism and purity. The very idea that you can be born more special than anyone else is repulsive to me, and while I know most British citizens go about their lives without giving the crowned fools much thought, I expect more from a historically conscious figure like Salman Rushdie, whose very livelihood deals with taking deceptively benign abstractions like royalty seriously.
"When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not."
The Islamic Revolution is seeking conquest and subjugation of the world, and offering no respect for the lives of those who disagree with them. The "Religion of Peace" line is ludicrous propaganda.
I'm originally from Iran and I think you fail to understand the difference between someone who practices islam and someone who is trapped in an islamic society. Islam, as written, mandates the vile things it's adherents do (and have done for some 1400 years.) There's a reason that virtually all qurans have sowrds on the cover.
I have no doubt that there are decent people who are born to muslim families, it's just that I'm certain that none of them practice islam.
Anyway, I don't want to hijack your post. Just wish you wouldn't fall for the 'islam means peace' BS.
That happens when we depart from our normal and customary cultural practices because of the attitudes of Pakistani government ministers.
So whether or not you agree with the honor itself, it has little or anything to do with the monarchy.
So the knighthood in the UK is bound up in the UK's acquiescence to an ugly tradition. Again, I'm glad that someone in the UK's gov't thinks highly of Rushdie. I do too. But I think that royalty will never go away so long as people give any credence to it, even if it's just symbolic. If everyone refused to accept a knighthood from UK royalty, then the gov't would have a reason to secularize the process completely.
After due thought and consideration, I feel this is an ppropriate response.
and so on and so forth.
I understand that in many poor African and Arab cultures, life is seen as a 'zero-sum game.' Details and examples are many, but this realization was one of the first times that I saw how people from different cultures can see the 'same' thing in very, very different ways.
I think that this cultural tendency and cultural history has a lot to do with Muslim behaviors that we find so disturbing. Put simply, zero sum means that if you're faring poorly, it MUST be because those who are doing well are keeping you down. A long history of strongman governments, clan based politics, and a religion that says they aught to be on top all contribute to this viewpoint.
After all, if Muslims are God's chosen ones, how could they be doing so poorly... except by a plot of the devil?
Granted, there are a lot of Muslims who are not Arabs, but I imagine that the critical cultural aspects that cause this zero-sum viewpoint is clearly transmitted by Islamic teachings.
I don't believe that Islam is fundamentally violent... and I hold out hope that Westernization (in the good ways) will provide Muslim cultures with the tools needed to significantly decrease violence.
Of course, that would require that Muslim cultures learn to hate corruption and violence more than they hate America and the Jews... and that's not going to happen anytime soon.
I'd question whether or not that's true. Specifically, whether or not it is in fact "Muslim Teachings" or "Arab Cultural Teachings"
I won't deny that there are also extremist elements within other Muslim socities, the vast majority of problems seem to stem from Arab muslims rather than, Indian Muslims, or Indonesian Muslims.
Further, where radical elements do exist, they tend to have different goals. Groups like Abu Sayaff (Filipino) don't focus so much on Israel and the United States, but focus more on the Filipino Government. But they do admittedly use some of the same rhetoric.
This suggests to me that it's politics subverting radical islam to it's goals rather than the other way around.
I don't disagree with you that royalty is silly, but that's not a practical way to live in a constitutional monarchy, where almost all government functions nominally go through the Crown.
Should I refuse to be a lawyer rather than call a judge "my Lady"? Should people call the police knowing criminal trials are formally Regina v. Accused? Is the government legitimate given that it is nominally appointed by the Queen?
Before I get to this, a short way to state what I believe is that 'current Muslim culture is a zero sum culture, leading to violence. This means that Islam, divested from this corrosive cultural aspect, may indeed be a religion of peace.' (Sadly, this is purely speculation.)
One thing about Muslim versus Arab cutural teachings is that it'd be hard to divest the two. And I have no interest in trying. I just want to advocate focussing on reducing zero-sum culture if we want to reduce violence.
Put a bunch of Islamic terrorists in an environment where it's easy to get a job, get a life, and get laid, and we'll have a lot fewer suicide bombers. This depends a lot more on westernizing zero-sum cultures than it does on combatting Islam.
No, I don't think someone should refuse to call the police when they know the case will be titled Regina v. X. But that's an extreme analogy, and extreme analogies prove are not helpful. Unlike refusing to try a case or calling police b/c of the regina in the case name, rejecting an award that bestows an honorific title is doable. Especially when someone like Rushdie has been praised so often already.
So, rejecting honorific titles b/c they're bound up in UK royalty is okay by me. Refusing to recognize one of the world's best governments and societies based on acquiescence to a regrettable notion of royalty, is not okay.
I can hold both positions simultaneously and maintain a strong resentment for an institution that is far from benign, and if nothing else, expensive to keep up.
What surprises me really is how the real Islam is hidden from the west. I the Muslims think there is a real agenda against Islam because frankly they know there SHOULD BE. If the western leaders/media showed what Islam really is there would be a real agenda not this half assed, kleptocracy attempt by the neocons.
Let’s see who should be against Islam hmmm? All women, Atheists, Jews, Christians, well anyone that doesn’t want to live under sharia law. That’s more than a billion people thank GOD(irony intended). For Bush I guess the weakness is the Saudi connection. Not sure why the pope is so weak, but thanks for nothing.
Not a stretch to refer to sharia law as fascism. It is what it is. An argument to why its NOT fascism would be interesting.
The worst part about this whole knighting thing is the honorable, humorous, and courageous Salman Rushdie was considered honoured by a knighthood. I mean GREENSPAN was knighted!?
Cultural teachings are hard to pin down, but cultural attitudes of populations are much easier. From my experience living and working in both Indonesia and Arab lands, I would agree that Arabs embrace the zero-sum game, but strongly disagree the Indonesians have adopted it. There are about as many Indonesians as there are Arabs.
Western media often portray Islam as Arab. That is a huge mistake.
So if your assignment was to explain Muslim violence (perhaps especially Indonesian Muslim violence), but you weren't allowed to declare Islam inherently peaceful or violent, do you have any ideas pertaining to common cultural issues?
I just imagine westernized American Muslims looking at their head-chopping contemporaties and thinking 'Jesus Christ! Get a life!' Or something like that. And I don't think that's because western Muslims are 'bad Muslims,' or something...
Would I be offended? Yes. Would I be concerned that Jews were no longer "safe" in Britain? Yes. Could I possibly imagine some sort of violence or threat of violence made by, say, the Knesset or perhaps by the ADL or other Jewish organization? No, I could not.
We in the West seem very careful to call Islam a "religion of peace" but it often seems like we are trying to convince ourselves of that . . .
I'd agree that monarchy on the face of it seems absurd but in practice constitutional monarchy works very well and in my opinion is actually more robust that the American system (which only the seppos have actually made work - everywhere else it has been tried it has rapidly lurched into dictatorship). A constitutional monarch has the great advantage that the formal power is kept out of the hands of politicians while the real power is delivered by a democratic process.
And, yes, knighthoods might be absurd but no less so than the American practice of calling everyone who has ever held public office senator, ambassador, governor or whatever for the rest of their lives.
exactly had sent Prof Volokh off
his usual MO of being 107% even-handed?
What exactly is different in
this new development compared to the
cartoons' craziness?
BTW, I think the expression "Religion of Peace"
has long ago passed into the annals of derisive
put-downs.
Any particular reason for calling Elizabeth II a "so-called" queen? Do you dispute that she is the queen of England?
And "disgusting" is a word that could only be used by someone totally ignorant of the British system of government. It is as democratic a system as our own, and in some ways more so.
Ah, the Constitutional Peasant skit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail - truly one of the classics.
Has it even been used non-sarcastically? If so, when was the last time?
I see little similarity between Indonesians and Arabs. The recent Indonesian violence appears to be inspired by modern Arabs who want to export Jihadi sentiments all over the world. Tha Bali bombings are prime candidates here. But it's awfully hard to attribute anything to 250 million people because of eight Jihadis. (Other local areas of conflict have been festering for hundreds of years. Few know how they started.)
I'm sure there are native born Americans living right here who also see themselves as Jihadis, but I really don't see that as a function of American culture.
In the case of the Arabs, I'd say their recent recognition that almost the whole world is passing them by is the cause of their frustration. The West was bad enough when it vaulted past the Arabs hundreds of years ago. Then came Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, China, etc. This is a huge problem with them, and they adopt the zero-sum mentality to avoid looking at themseles. They really don't believe the zero-sum stuff, but act on it anyway because that's less painful than really facing their problem.
If we could figure out a way to make the Arabs successful, we wouldn't have the current problems. But nobody can do it for them; they have to do it themselves or it isn't their success.
Yes, for example numerous members of the British aristocracy recently were arrested. You guessed it -- they were conspiring to fly airliners into buildings full of thousands of unsuspecting civilians. The evil plague of the peerage must be stopped once and for all!!
The very topic is a setup. No? How does: "Christianity: Religion of Selflessness?" sound? (Pan to shot of televangilist limos and jets). Or "Hinduism: Religion of Tolerance?" - pan to shot of Muslims being burnt alive, Gujrat 1992.
To quote Al Smith, "Let us look to the facts, let us look to the facts." The total number of Muslims involved in all terror actions worldwide is a tiny, tiny fraction of 1% of the total. Intolerance? Muslim lands have (and continue) to have significant non-Muslim minorities, even after centuries of Muslim rule. By contrast, Europe, for example was until a few decades ago almost entirely Christian. Even much maligned Iran has a Jewish community - and a Jewish Member of Parliament.
Coming to Mr. Rushdie's knighthood - (and yes, it goes without saying that his life should not be threatened, and he should have the freedom to churn out whatever bile he likes) - it is entirely disingenous to be shocked, shocked, that the honor should be seen as a deliberate thumb in the eye of Muslims. Honors have, and always have been, inherently political.
Thats why, for example, P.G. Wodehouse was not knighted except on his death bed, on the basis of entirely spurious and thoroughly investigated allegations of Nazi collaboration. To single out "Sir Rushdie", and then to be "outraged by the outrage" aka Senator Inhofe is a paper thin charade that fools few, but serves many on the Islamophobe right.
An analogy would be knighting the Holocaust denying David Irving, and insisting it was for his work on say, the Elgin Marbles. The statement that such an action would send would be deafening, and it would be regardless of the ostensible reason for the honor. Such a scenario is inconceivable though, precisely because Holocaust denial is rightly considered beyond the pale, while Islamophobia will get you honor, tenure and a lucrative gig on Fox/Regnery et al.
While there is no doubt that there are plenty of Muslims with severe foot-in-mouth disease, there is no doubt that "sensible" statements and nuanced discussions make for poor storytelling, and are thus virtually universally ignored in the western media.
Spoken like a true ratbastardcommiemofo without a clue.
I have to agree with most of your points, but the few passages from Rushdie is a minute portion of his total work. Those passages would have been largely forgotten if Muslim leaders had not gone out of their way to make them famous.
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens recently wrote books attacking Christianity. Many Christians are outraged by what they said. But is it reasonable to lump them with Holocaust deniers because they offended someone's religious sentiments?
Dan Brown's DaVinci Code deeply offended many Christians. Is he too cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers?
Western culture accepts and protects the right to criticize religion. That's not something we choose to give up because Muslims don't like to see their religion criticized, mocked, or ridiculed. Nor do we choose to give it up for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists. Muslims are no more important than anyone else.
I'm not familiar with Rushdie's work. What has he done that's Islamophobic?
Let me be unequivocal: I believe in Rushdie's absolute right of freedom of speech, and in his right to live in safety and peace.
I also do not believe that Islam should be sacrosanct, placed on a pedestal etc.
What I am addressing is the message here. Tony Blair is far too savvy a politician to be oblivious to the message he sent by knighting Rushdie. You may see the gesture as recognizing a great writer. But my point is that Blair would have been well aware of the sub-text; indeed, honors are carefully vetted for this exact reason. Like I pointed out earlier, my favorite author, Wodehouse, was not knighted till weeks before his death precisely because he was controversial for supposed Nazi collaboration, no matter how unfounded those allegations where.
The modern parallel I offered, (as did Bobinho earlier) was that of knighting a Holocaust denier for services rendered in non-Holocaust denial fields. It simply wouldnt happen.
Knighting him, like celebrating the cartoons depicting the Prophet with a snout (NOT "mere depictions") is simply kicking a group of people thats already down. Expecting them to celebrate this as "freedom of expression" is akin to expecting German Jews in 1933 to celebrate the Nazi propaganda reviling them as "freedom of speech." (Did I just cross Godwin's law?) Or alternatively, expecting Jim Crow African Americans to hail their depictions in the then Southern press on the same ground.
The cure of speech by more speech works only when the distribution of power is not ridiculously lopsided. If it is lopsided, then you can hardly take the protests of someone whose kicked when down as proof of the latter's inherent violence, bestiality, or animus toward freedom of speech.
People are free to celebrate or condemn the selection of knighthood candidates; that's their right just as much as it is Rushdie's right to write what he chooses.
However, for us to calmly accept the Pakistani minister's despicable idea that this justifies suicide bombers would be an insult to the 99% of Muslims who do not share his ideas. This is far more than a protest from someone who lacks power.
So, I will continue to express shock and outrage that someone who claims to represent Islam would stoop to such depths. To do otherwise would be to accept that this is what is to be expected from Muslims, and that would be a truly insulting attitude.
I hope to hear comdemnations of his ideas from prominent leaders of Pakistan and other nations where Islam predomonates. Their silence only perpertuates the tarring of the whole group with the most despicable traits of its most despicable members.
Noone is calmly asking anyone to calmly accept the Pakistani Minister's remarks.
But I _am_ pointing out that there is a difference between _tolerating_ certain views/individuals and _celebrating_ them. Again, if this is too abstract, posit tolerating a Holocaust denier (questionable in Europe) versus celebrating them.
FYI, If I recall correctly, that particular image was not part of the "contest" at all, but was rather an image distributed by imams with the allegation that it had been in the contest, and was in fact a picture taken from some sort of strange Pig Squealing contest in france. (it's a man wearing pig ears and a snout)
Jeez. He's on the same page with the imam who put the ringers into the display.
They never figure out that the rest of us know better.
That’s exactly what I was thinking too. I was surprised to see Smiley propagate that falsehood.
Also "This is classic racism: taking the most despicable traits of the most despicable members of a group of people, and tarring the entire group with them"
I'm sorry but I was under the impression Islam was a religious belief not an ethnic group? How does racism apply here? If you dispute the claim that Islam is NOT a religion of peace and that the majority of practicing Muslims are practicing peaceful Islam as taught in the Koran it should be easy. Just point out the moral context of Islam. It should be easy enough for you to let us know the main moral points the religion.
I'll give you a hint the closest thing to morality you will find is alms giving. There simply isn’t anything else there except submission, oppression, and expansion.
But hey they let dhimmis live under the tax so lets just let things be. Oh wait I'm an athiest...
And so does Blair and the Western world. That's why Rushdie was knighted. In a world of propaganda and lies (fabricated Mohammed snout, Halocaust denial), those who still speak and do not back down to overwheling intimidation are to be hailed as the keepers of Western values. Not shutting up in the face of mortal danger allows an opening for truth-speakers to navigate in a sea of lies. If we try to be nice, and all we'll have left are the lies.
The Satanic Verses is a work of fiction. The Mohammed cartoons are editorial content well within the bounds of existing taste. Yet both were met with murderous, intimidating rage by the Muslim world, threatening to restrict a vital Western Value. There's no comparison at all between these writings and rank propoganda like Halocaust denial. Most speech is protected, but only some deserves praise. (and yes, laws against Halocaust denial speech do make me nervous)
It is to Rushdie's credit that he is a good writer, and that he stood up to tyranny. If that gets some peoples' knickers in a twist, then maybe that's a good thing.
re: Danish cartoons (substituting, for the purposes of this discussion, the undisputedly genuine bomb-turban one for the allegedly fictitious pig-depiction). The same newspaper had refused to publish cartoons of Jesus since it would offend a segment of the populace they did not wish to offen. Well within their editorial rights, yes. But dont hold them up as a paragon of free speech. They stomped all over the weakest and most despised group in Danish society, deferred to the stronger ones. There is nothing heroic or praiseworthy in that.
Re: racism. Spare me the "dhimmi" and "Islam isnt a race" rubbish. The confluence between "hirsute brown hordes" and "Islam" in the public perception is too well established to ignore. But fine, substitute the word "bigotry" for racism. The principle is the same. The broad brush you're using is the textbook example of bigotry.
RC: once again, let me repeat myself. Murderous rage and violence - not acceptable. Legitimate anger and indignation at being vilified IS perfectly acceptable. What you're trying to do is blur the line between the two, and substitute the first (unacceptable) for the second (perfectly acceptable).
Does anyone else remember Rushdie standing with
the Ortega brothers at a Sandanista rally while
they explained that a free press a tool of the
counter revolutionaries and would not be tolerated
in Sandanista Nicaragua?
http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/19/top1.htm
EJAZ’S ABOUT-FACE: Minister Ejazul Haq created a stir in the house when he made his controversial remarks about the justification of suicide attacks while condemning the British government’s weekend award of knighthood to Salman Rushdie, author of the book “The Satanic Verses”, widely seen in the Islamic world as blasphemous, and called for breaking diplomatic relations with London and a boycott of the British High Commission in Islamabad by parliament members until the award was withdrawn.
Earlier in the day, the house unanimously passed a resolution sponsored by PML and MMA members, protesting against the award, which it said could cause “religious hatred and rift between religious” and asking the British government to withdraw it.The minister made some remarks about suicide attacks, which he later retracted twice in the house after being aired by private television channels and attracting a protest by People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPP) chief whip Khurshid Ahmed Shah.
Mr Haq said he meant to say that actions like the award of knighthood to Rushdie could be used by suicide bombers as a justification of their acts rather than himself justifying such acts against blasphemy
You contrast toleration and celebration. OK, that's fair. But I think defiance is also operative here. The British people are defying the despicable people who call for death for an author by honoring the author, not for a few passages in one book, but for his entire body of work. They are telling the despicable of the world they will not be cowed by their murderous outbursts, regardless of the false cloak of religion they hide behind. We need more defiance like this, not less.
You and I and Blair and the West agree. Most Muslims agree. The ones who disagree are the ones who would kill Rushdie for creating works of fiction that would be acceptable to them if targeted toward other groups, and indeed are far tamer than much Islamist speech against other beliefs.
Rushdie stood up against murderous intimidation that demanded special treatment and immunity from inquiry. That sort of thing is antithetical to a healthy western society, and when Rushdie weathered the storm he demonstrated a victory for western values.
Muslims can get as offended as they want about Rushdie's fiction. But they should never get the double standards that some are campaigning for, nor should they be able to silence speech through threat of violence, as some bona fide Muslim governments are encouraging.
Some people, yes; it's not uncommon, if often Ha Ha Only Seriously held. It also is often suggested for punishment of Islamofacists who commit war crimes -- EG, shoot them with bullets dipped in pork fat. I'd make it a bit more general than that to resist "cruel and unusual" challenges; to wit, a law directing agents of the state (IE, the prison warden) to perform disposition of the human remains of any death row prisoner (or one who dies while imprisoned for war crimes, or other crimes against humanity) in whatever manner otherwise allowed by law as they believe may serve as a maximal deterrent to future such offenses committed by others. If that means pouring bacon grease on the corpses of Islamic terrorists before cremation, and having the ashes afterwards mixed into pig feed, I'm cool with that.
Of course, some of that may be from my Catholic upbringing or current agnostic leanings. After my body is dead, it doesn't seem much concern of mine. Also, a challenge based on the constitutional restriction against "Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" looks like it might be more problematic, since the estate could no longer include the decedent's corpse. However, another 9/11 incident would mean the only difficulty in Amending that would be in keeping the required Amendment narrowly worded.
You seem to think there is some vast core of "good Islam" and we are being attacked by a fringe group of radicals? Interesting but the truth is you can’t take the Mohammed out of Islam.
Oh that silly Minister! Did he make an ass of himself? Whoopsie! Of course he didn't mean what he said.
And that "group of people" being metaphorically "kicked" by knighting Salman Rushdie...is the group consisting of intolerant, militant Muslim fundamentalists?
Who is being vilified by *Salman Rushdie*? Or by the British Government for knighting him?
Especially since he is largely a writer of *fiction*?
So their "pressure" on this minister includes *unanimously* voting for a resolution opposing the award to Rushdie?