I dont think theres a massive need for a big hoo-haa, no-one really cares whos been given a knighthood or not.

He shouldnt have been given a knighthood tho, simply because he hasnt done anything to deserve one.

This Government is probably the most stupid in the history of Britain. Blair must be Bush Cnr's son he never had.

How could you possibly not know it would piss Muslims reet off? Either it was done maliciously or my above statement is true.

We don't know that it was on Tony Blair's recommendation, but Iran hasn't exactly gone about earning his respect. There's a general consensus that Salman Rushdie deserves support against these absurd threats.

Rushdie won the Booker long before The Satanic Verses, which in fact was a runner up. I haven't read it, it's a dense read about some verses Mohammed supposedly spoke then later recanted.

Midnight's Children received a special award for being the best Booker winner of all time. He is highly distinguished in the literary world and there is no case for kowtowing to certain Muslim quarters. A number of literary figures have received honours, it isn't unusual. The one for Dame Edna's more of an affront.

This disgusting obsession's just not cricket. Writers here are free to debunk religion.

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

does the reaction again confirm muslims are reactionary, extreme, intolerant, too emotional, pathetic, violent and so narrow minded?

Whosoever reacts.

http://www.powells.com/prizes/booker.html

Knight them all!

Someone with such intelligence surely couldn't be so malevolent?

Inciting is far worse than the consequences.

As Muslims we shouldn't give this Salman Rushdie any time. Nor to the inciters.

'If you cry when I slap you, it will make me laugh!'

Apart from the fact that he's a highly regarded novelist (I can't comment whether he's good or not because I only read Danielle Steele books ) I think that IF there is any sort of political reasoning behind his knighthood, it is maybe a token gesture that is trying to prove that the value of 'free-speech' is more important than the value of 'not offending minority groups (Muslims in particular)'. It may well be a belated response to the Danish cartoon episode and the issues that were raised there.

Alternatively, it could have something to do with the Iranian capture of British soldiers.

To be honest, the whole issue with the Satanic Verses is a bit strange. I've heard some Muslims say that IF the particular event happened, there is nothing wrong with it for us, because it teaches a valuable lesson that Muhammad was not saying things out of his own desire, and that Allah (swt) corrected him when he made mistakes. It doesn't AT ALL go against the claim that the Qu'ran is entirally the revealed word of Allah (swt).

I would MUCH prefer people to challenge Muslim beliefs or criticise them instead of staying quiet (in fear of offence or a hostile reaction). That way we can explain their misconceptions and clarify any misunderstanding they may (and probably do) have about Islam, instead of them staying quiet and therfore not learning anything new about Islam.

Yet ONE more thing to complain about Muslims being stupid...

[b]Iran says Queen hates Islam and turning Satan into a SIR proves it.[/b]

I thinks they are over-reacting. She doesn't really hate Islam. Her own son Prince Charles the next King of England says he loves Islam and it is suggested that he is presently thinking of coverting to Islam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2105364,00.html

Quote:

[b]Rushdie honour insults Islam, Iran says[/b]

The Guardian
Monday June 18, 2007

Iran accused Britain yesterday of insulting Islam by awarding a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses prompted the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa calling for his assassination.

Mohammad Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, portrayed the decision to honour the novelist as an orchestrated act of aggression directed against Islamic societies, describing Rushdie as "one of the most hated figures" in the Islamic world.

"Honouring and commending an apostate and hated figure will definitely put the British officials [in a position] of confrontation with Islamic societies," he said. "This act shows that insulting Islamic sacred [values] is not accidental. It is planned, organised, guided and supported by some western countries."

The Islamic republic's government formally distanced itself in 1998 from the original fatwa against Rushdie, issued in 1989 by Khomeini, who said the book committed blasphemy against Islam. But shortly after it disavowed the death edict under a deal with Britain, the Iranian media said three Iranian clerics had called on followers to kill Rushdie, saying the fatwa was irrevocable and that it was the duty of Muslims to carry it out.

Rushdie returned to public life in 1999, a decade after being forced underground by Khomeini's declaration.

He was the most high-profile of the 946 people honoured in the Queen's birthday list, drawn from nominations by the public or expert organisations.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the honour was "richly deserved" and the reasons for it were "self-explanatory".

Mr Hosseini added: "Giving a badge to one of the most hated figures in Islamic society is ... an obvious example of fighting against Islam by high-ranking British officials."

His remarks follow angry scenes outside the British embassy in Tehran last week. Demonstrators pelted the compound with stones and eggs and condemned anyone attending the Queen's annual birthday party as "traitors" and supporters of the "old fox" Britain.

In a statement following the announcement of his knighthood on Saturday, Rushdie, 59, said he was "thrilled and humbled to receive this great honour". Literary supporters said the decision to include the novelist among 21 knighthoods was overdue, claiming the British establishment had for many years been reluctant to be associated with the controversial figure.

The Satanic Verses was the Indian-born author's fourth book. It was condemned throughout the Islamic world because of claims that it blasphemously depicted the prophet Muhammad.

Update, June 20, 2007

[b]Iranian MPs condemn Rushdie knighthood[/b]

Iran has stepped up its protests over the award of a knighthood to the British author Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses prompted a fatwa calling for his assassination.

Iran's state radio reported today that 221 of the country's 290 MPs signed a statement condemning Rushdie's knighthood.

Yesterday Iran's foreign ministry summoned the British ambassador to complain about the award.

An Iranian foreign ministry official, Ebrahim Rahimpour, told the British ambassador, Geoffrey Adams, that the decision to award the honour to the author was a "provocative act" that had angered Muslims, according to the state Islamic Republic News Agency.

Mr Adams told Iranian officials that Rushdie was being honoured for his works of literature. He stressed that the British government respected Islam, IRNA reported. The ambassador said he would relay Tehran's protest to London.

Rushdie went into hiding for a decade after Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa in 1989 calling for the author's assassination. The Iranian government distanced itself from the fatwa in 1998, declaring that it would not support the edict, but could not rescind it.

Rushdie received the knighthood for services to literature in the Queen's birthday honours list published on Saturday.

It emerged today that the government arts committee that recommended the knighthood did not discuss any possible political ramifications, and reportedly never imagined that the award would provoke the furious response that it has done in parts of the Muslim world.

The writers' organisation Pen International, which had lobbied for Rushdie to be knighted, originally hoped that honouring the Indian-born author would lead to better relations between Britain and Asia.

But the row over the knighthood has continued to spread today, with supporters of a Malaysian Islamist political party staging a protest outside the British embassy.

Chanting "Destroy Salman Rushdie" and "Destroy Britain", around 30 members of the opposition Parti Islam se-Malaysia party handed a protest note to embassy officials, urging Britain to withdraw the honour or risk the consequences.

"This has tainted the whole knighthood, the whole hall of fame of the British system," said the Parti treasurer, Hatta Ramli.

"The British government must be responsible because it has created a sudden feeling of anger not just on Salman Rushdie but on the British government," he said. "They have to bear the consequences."

Meanwhile, Robert Brinkley, the British high commissioner in Islamabad, yesterday made representations to the Pakistani government over remarks supposedly made by the minister for religious affairs, Mohammed Ejaz ul-Haq, in which he appeared to justify suicide bombings as a response to the knighthood.

Mr Haq is the son of the former Pakistani military leader Zia ul-Haq, who was savagely satirised in Rushdie's second novel, Shame, which was published in 1983 and focused on political turmoil in Pakistan.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said Mr Brinkley had expressed "deep concern about what the minister of religious affairs is reported to have said".

"We made very clear that nothing can justify suicide bomb attacks," she said.

Mr Haq has since said that his comments were a statement of fact and not intended to incite violence.

Pakistan's foreign minister, Kurshid Kasuri, said on a visit to Washington that Britain could not have been surprised by the outrage.

Rushdie was celebrating his 60th birthday in London yesterday, and is not commenting on the latest threats to his life. It is understood he is anxious not to inflame the situation.

Scotland Yard declined to comment as a matter of policy on whether the writer had been given police protection.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2107281,00.html

[b]The question is, is Knighthood Anti-Islamic?[/b]

"malik" wrote:

[b]The question is, is Knighthood Anti-Islamic?[/b]

A number of Muslim figures have received it including the people who are supposed to represent us, Sir Iqbal Sacranie (former General Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain).

he didnt deserve the knighthood

hes not a highly rated writer at all. well at least not by the general public, maybe by the self congratulating saps in the “art” world...

he has written one decent novel in his entire life, the rest off his stuff is overblown and vastly overrated...

dont remember him receiving an OBE or MBE, so i dont understand why he got fast tracked to sir hood ?

moreover, hes an ungreatful twerp. he cost the british taxpayer millions to protect his pampered backside and has shown no gratitude at all for it...

he knew his novel would cause a ruckus, but he did it anyway just for the thrill...the berk...he should have footed the bill for his bodyguards...

the queen should present him will a invoice not a knighhood...

this is a political award...symbolic rubbish...i cant think anyone less deserving of an honour than samon rushy

all the same, its none of pakistan or irans business who we give awards to. they should keep their noses out.

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:

he didnt deserve the knighthood

hes not a highly rated writer at all. well at least not by the general public, maybe by the self congratulating saps in the “art” world...

he has written one decent novel in his entire life, the rest off his stuff is overblown and vastly overrated...

dont remember him receiving an OBE or MBE, so i dont understand why he got fast tracked to sir hood ?

moreover, hes an ungreatful twerp. he cost the british taxpayer millions to protect his pampered backside and has shown no gratitude at all for it...

he knew his novel would cause a ruckus, but he did it anyway just for the thrill...the berk...he should have footed the bill for his bodyguards...

the queen should present him will a invoice not a knighhood...

this is a political award...symbolic rubbish...i cant think anyone less deserving of an honour than samon rushy

all the same, its none of pakistan or irans business who we give awards to. they should keep their noses out.

hmmm... well put!

i wana know why the british government pays billions of tax money protecting salman rushdies life. He has the british services watching over him and a group of bodyguards paid for by the government. Is his life so sacred that he gets this royal treatment curtesy of the gov?

There are many ppl out there who deserve police protection i.e witnesses to crimes cannot get sufficient protection. They are always being moved around, they have to change their identity etc etc. Victims of stalking get little protection unless they're attacked or even raped. many celebs travel with just one personal bodyguard paid for by themselves. Yet salman rushdie is treated like a royal why?

I can see why muslims are incensed. His literature was not harmless, writing is often used to fuel the fire. It's quite obvious he didn't innocently write the book, expecting to open up a debate he wanted to sow the seeds of persecution against muslims. It's trashy work, leaflets, and heresay like this that get things rolling. Stuff like this happened with the mass jewish persecution and some of you may disagree. But i think the gov are protecting him because its in their interests he;s a valuable tool. Come on gov wouldn't pay to protect just anyone.

They don't like religion, christianity is mocked everywhere in the media, in literature, on radio and tv its all part of making secular beliefs dominant and religion a farce. Now its time to try and make islam a farce.

btw the satanic verses was not based on something muhammad said. Amongst many things what incensed muslims the most was his allegations that the wives of the prophet were prostitutes in a brothel, and our prophet was basically a child molester and pimp. Astagfirullah. I have no sympathy for him, he will get his just punishment when he meets his creator.

I don't care about his knighthood, but muslims are taking offence because they see it as the gov supporting the content of this novel. Ok he's being awarded it for the entire body of his work, but that book is amongst them, u reckon all muslims are gona overlook that? Jewish ppl are very proud of their faith as are muslims. Now if literature like this was written insulting the jewish faith, do you really think the gov would allow this book to go into print? If it did would the author then be treated like a royal with 24 hr protection and be given a title of "sir"? I think not.

The Prophet was the victim of slander and even physical abuse, some people through their litter at him whilst he was praying.

He did not, however, react by throwing a hissy-fit, burning flags or even raising his voice. He prayed for their forgivness and waited patiently for an opportunity to talk to them about Allah (swt) and eventually the entire Hijaz became Muslim.

Whenever anyone says anything bad about the Prophet (saw), see it as an opportunity for you to tell them the real story about the life of the greatnest man to have lived, and insha'Allah they may eventually understand him, love him, and even follow his teachings.

If they see someone throw a tantrum, however. They will go away thinking Muslims are emotional, impatient and unreasonable.

Ya'qub is correct.

yashmaki, your comment is incorrect about literature insulting the Jewish faith. Your holy book for starters. Criticism, alternative theories and blasphemous fiction covering all religions abounds, but Jews aren't as touchy about it and don't pounce with indignation on what so-and-so thinks. The whole of progressive Judaism is based on a variety of new theories about the Torah that the Orthodox could find highly offensive. In fact many of even the most Orthodox Jews love a good challenge, material for further study. Your question is more easily reversed, say when someone paints a naked Jesus, or when Penn and Teller chuck copies of the Bible behind their backs on set: what reactions would we see if this had been Mohammed or the Qu'ran?

I've mentioned before that, in spite of some extremely sacrilegious passages, one of my favourite books is Anthony Burgess' Earthly Powers. Another is Kingdom of the Wicked. In both, Burgess freely blasphemes against Christianity and arguably against Judaism. I never saw anyone burning the British flag as a result.

Quote:

[size=12]Did no one really understand that far from being in the category of those who have made a positive contribution, Rushdie has deepened the divisions in our society, and this accolade was likely to deepen them still further?[/size]

[url=http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/oliver_miles/2007/06/an_odd_candidat... Miles, Comment is Free [/url]

Quote:

[size=12]Until, and even after, the vicious death sentence pronounced by Ayatollah Khomeini, Rushdie could not possibly have been endorsed by an establishment he had committed himself to undermining in merciless prose and brilliant satire. Rushdie wrote powerful essays about institutional racism, cultural condescension, Thatcherism, anti-immigrant legislation, Raj nostalgia and a sham multiculturalism where a "black man could only become integrated when he started behaving like a white man".

Sir Salman is partly the creation of the fatwa that played its role in strengthening the self-fulfilling "clash of civilisations" that both Bush and Osama bin Laden find so handy. Driven underground and into despair by zealotry, Rushdie finally emerged blinking into New York sunshine shortly before the towers came tumbling down. Those formidable literary powers would now be deployed not against, but in the service of, an American regime that had declared its own fundamentalist monopoly on the meanings of "freedom" and "liberation". The Sir Salman recognised for his services to literature is certainly no neocon but is iconic of a more pernicous trend: liberal literati who have assented to the notion that humane values, tolerance and freedom are fundamentally western ideas that have to be defended as such.

Vociferously supporting the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on "humane" grounds, condemning criticism of the war on terror as "petulant anti-Americanism" and above all, aligning tyranny and violence solely with Islam, Rushdie has abdicated his own understanding of the novelist's task as "giving the lie to official facts". Now he recalls his own creation Baal, the talented poet who becomes a giggling hack coralled into attacking his ruler's enemies. Denuded of texture and complexity, it is no accident that this fiction since the early 90s has disappeared into a critical wasteland. The mutation of this relevant and stentorian writer into a pallid chorister is a tragic allegory of our benighted times, of the kind he once narrated so vividly.[/size]

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2105446,00.html]Priyamvada Gopal[/url]

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

yashmaki, your comment is incorrect about literature insulting the Jewish faith. Your holy book for starters.

I disagree, ONLY insulting things about Judaism or Jews is *sometimes* added in commentaries and translations of the Qur'an, but there is nothing against Judaism in the actual text. Rather, CERTAIN members of the Children of Israel who were arrogant and ungrateful are presented as an example to us (not to become arrogant or ungrateful).

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

Criticism, alternative theories and blasphemous fiction covering all religions abounds, but Jews aren't as touchy about it and don't pounce with indignation on what so-and-so thinks.

Again I disagree. There are many Jews who scream 'Anti-semitism!' and run out the room. Both communities of Muslims and Jews are full of close-minded, ignorant and short-tempered people.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

Ya'qub is correct

I agree with you here, although you should have said "Ya'qub is [b]always[/b] correct."

You are right that short tempers are responsible for a lot of idiocy, far more so I suggest than Mr Rushdie.

About your comment on "Jews who scream 'Anti-semitism!' and run out the room", that doesn't apply to works criticising the texts but to works that specifically demean Jewish people, and there is a significant difference between finding something racist and finding it challenging to your beliefs. As for running out of the room - death fatwas, flag-burnings, assassinating translators? Is that a serious comparison?

I wouldn't challenge your assertion that there are closed-minded and short-tempered fools in my community also.

As long as your interpretation of the Qu'ran on Jews is reasonable there's no point my making any other case, but there's quite an array of verses used by jihadi types against me in my earlier visits to this forum. With your permission we'll say no more of that.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

About your comment on "Jews who scream 'Anti-semitism!' and run out the room", that doesn't apply to works criticising the texts but to works that specifically demean Jewish people, and there is a significant difference between finding something racist and finding it challenging to your beliefs. As for running out of the room - death fatwas, flag-burnings, assassinating translators? Is that a serious comparison?

Under British law, there is no distinction between Jewish people and Judaism the religion. Hence racist attacks on Jews i.e. Anti-Semitism and attacks on Judaism are considered to be the same, under the race acts.

As for the fatwa and running out of the room. There are means and ways, niether are wrong. When your slapped by a person you can either slap back or walk away and a fatwa to some (including me) is justified.

i agree with yaqub certains jews are made examples in the Quran so we don't go astray, it has nothing to do with encouraging muslims to despise all jews irrationally. Of course u get zealous ignorant muslims who love to bad mouth jews all the time using Quranic verses but i don't believe thats how it's meant to be applied. I certainly don't agree with those muslims, in fact they anger me. But if you play this stance with those muslims they just bad mouth u aswell, oh ur a bad muslim ur siding with the kaffirs blah blah blah.

As for Jews always screaming anti semitism, well sometimes it's well founded othertimes its not. Unfortunately this disease has now passed on to the muslims they now scream islamophobia about pretty much everything, even when no religious offence was intended, i hate that coz it prevents discussion of any sort.

I think the death threat should be lifted from salman rushdie though, coz he will be punished in the next life anyway, better than we could ever punish him here.

salam mmm,

The fact is that Rushdie was not living in Iran when he wrote the Satanic verses, and you can't go around imposing your own value-judgements on people living in other societies, however correct you may think you are (which is what George Bush and Tony Blair did to the people of Iraq, too).

IF he had been living in Iran, and had been aware that the penalty for insulting the Prophet was execution, AND THEN he wrote and published the Satanic Verses, then it would not be any of Britain's (or anybody's) business if they were to issue a fatwa or not.

There is no Khalif, The Muslims Ummah is divided on racial lines and by national borders, and if someone issues a fatwa (which 90% of Muslim Ulema signed up AGAINST at the time) then it has no legal bearing. You may either agree with it or disagree, after looking at all the evidence and counter-arguments. But like it or not, you are a British Subject of the Queen, and if you brake a British law (inciting to murder) you are likely to face prison. I don't see why a Sunni should follow a fatwa issued by a Shi'a Cleric (especially over something so important), and especially when the vast, vast, VAST majority of Muslim scholars, of all persuasions, disagree with his ruling.

But, of course, Allah (swt) knows best

yashmaki,

While I wouldn't wish any punishment on Rushdie I do appreciate everything else in that response.[list][/list:u][list][/list:u]

"mmm" wrote:

Under British law, there is no distinction between Jewish people and Judaism the religion. Hence racist attacks on Jews i.e. Anti-Semitism and attacks on Judaism are considered to be the same, under the race acts.

That doesn't sound remotely accurate. People are free to attack, belittle, satirise or reinterpret religious works and free to criticise the religion. Could you please provide the source for your assertion?

"yashmaki" wrote:

I think the death threat should be lifted from salman rushdie though, coz he will be punished in the next life anyway, better than we could ever punish him here.

Quote:

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

He returned to public life in 1999 and even appeared in the hit movie Bridget Jones's Diary.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

yashmaki,

While I wouldn't wish any punishment on Rushdie I do appreciate everything else in that response.[list][/list:u][list][/list:u]

"mmm" wrote:

Under British law, there is no distinction between Jewish people and Judaism the religion. Hence racist attacks on Jews i.e. Anti-Semitism and attacks on Judaism are considered to be the same, under the race acts.

That doesn't sound remotely accurate. People are free to attack, belittle, satirise or reinterpret religious works and free to criticise the religion. Could you please provide the source for your assertion?

http://www.britkid.org/si-religiousdiscrim.html

http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew05l.RefLocID-0hg00900f006... [color=red]-- 9th Paragraph[/color]

Yakmashi,

Said I agree with the fatwa. Did not say anyone should carry it out. His life now and his life after, are and will be punishment enough!

"mmm" wrote:

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

"mmm" wrote:

Under British law, there is no distinction between Jewish people and Judaism the religion. Hence racist attacks on Jews i.e. Anti-Semitism and attacks on Judaism are considered to be the same, under the race acts.

That doesn't sound remotely accurate. People are free to attack, belittle, satirise or reinterpret religious works and free to criticise the religion. Could you please provide the source for your assertion?

http://www.britkid.org/si-religiousdiscrim.html

http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew05l.RefLocID-0hg00900f006... [color=red]-- 9th Paragraph[/color]

[list]
[/list:u]
[list]

"The first link you gave" wrote:

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

The law about this is a bit complicated.
In Northern Ireland everyone has been protected for some years against discrimination at work on the grounds of their religion. Because of the history of conflict between two branches of Christianity - Protestants and Catholics - the Fair Employment Act was passed. This protected people whatever their religion, so Muslims and Hindus were covered too.
Since 2003 it's been against the law anywhere in the UK to refuse someone a job on the grounds of their religion, and since 2006 it's been a crime to deliberately stir up religious hatred.
While there is no law protecting people from being treated badly in other ways because of their religion. The complicated bit is that, in practice, some people are protected by the Race Relations Act:

* Jews are classified as a 'racial group' under the Race Relations Act because they have what's called a 'common heritage'. This means that almost all Jews are the children of Jews (it is possible to convert, but it is rare) and that people born as Jews tend to still call themselves Jews, even if they are not at all religious. Jews have also experienced such persecution that it would have been impossible not to have included them in the law. Their persecution in the past, especially under the Nazis, was not because of their religious beliefs.

* Sikhs are also classified as a 'racial group' under the Race Relations Act because as well as religion they have common roots: a language and culture in the Punjab area of north west India. They are not physically any different from Muslims and Hindus from the same area.

* If some action unfairly discriminates against a particular religion, then it may be that its followers are protected by the Race Relations Act if they all belong to one ethnic group. This is called indirect discrimination. (Example: strictly speaking it would be legal for a landlord to advertise for tenants saying 'Christians only', but in an area with many non-Christian Asian people, maybe the advert indirectly discriminates against them.)

[b]
[color=darkred]At the moment, other laws give special protection to Christians:

* Christians are protected by the blasphemy laws against their religion being publicly insulted. These laws were passed many years ago when almost the whole population would have said they were Christian, and when the Christian religion was much more a part of everyday life. [/color]No-one has been punished for this crime for a long time[color=darkred], but it may seem odd to the Britkids that it's a crime to insult the god that Christians believe in but not a crime to insult the god that Sikhs or Jews believe in.[/color][/b] It's complicated though. Don't mix this up with the law against stirring up religious hatred, which is different.

[i][size=9](My highlights; text of link presented in full)[/size]
[/i]

"Your second link" wrote:

Furthermore, these provisions do not seek to prevent freedom of expression, nor specifically; criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; proselytising one’s own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practicing theirs; telling jokes about religions; or expressing antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents. All of which objections have been raised by those who fear the introduction of this legislation.

Jews and Sikhs are already covered by the incitement to racial hatred legislation, regardless of whether material is religiously or racially motivated, however this has not prevented either robust criticism or debate of those religions and communities, nor has it prevented the telling of jokes.

[size=9][i]From the 8th and 9th paragraphs as directed.[/i][/size]
[/list:u]
If anything in there supports your strange claim that criticism of the Jewish religion is a crime please point it out.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

"mmm" wrote:

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

"mmm" wrote:

Under British law, there is no distinction between Jewish people and Judaism the religion. Hence racist attacks on Jews i.e. Anti-Semitism and attacks on Judaism are considered to be the same, under the race acts.

That doesn't sound remotely accurate. People are free to attack, belittle, satirise or reinterpret religious works and free to criticise the religion. Could you please provide the source for your assertion?

http://www.britkid.org/si-religiousdiscrim.html

http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew05l.RefLocID-0hg00900f006... [color=red]-- 9th Paragraph[/color]

[list]
[/list:u]
[list]

"The first link you gave" wrote:

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

The law about this is a bit complicated.
In Northern Ireland everyone has been protected for some years against discrimination at work on the grounds of their religion. Because of the history of conflict between two branches of Christianity - Protestants and Catholics - the Fair Employment Act was passed. This protected people whatever their religion, so Muslims and Hindus were covered too.
Since 2003 it's been against the law anywhere in the UK to refuse someone a job on the grounds of their religion, and since 2006 it's been a crime to deliberately stir up religious hatred.
While there is no law protecting people from being treated badly in other ways because of their religion. The complicated bit is that, in practice, some people are protected by the Race Relations Act:

* Jews are classified as a 'racial group' under the Race Relations Act because they have what's called a 'common heritage'. This means that almost all Jews are the children of Jews (it is possible to convert, but it is rare) and that people born as Jews tend to still call themselves Jews, even if they are not at all religious. Jews have also experienced such persecution that it would have been impossible not to have included them in the law. Their persecution in the past, especially under the Nazis, was not because of their religious beliefs.

* Sikhs are also classified as a 'racial group' under the Race Relations Act because as well as religion they have common roots: a language and culture in the Punjab area of north west India. They are not physically any different from Muslims and Hindus from the same area.

* If some action unfairly discriminates against a particular religion, then it may be that its followers are protected by the Race Relations Act if they all belong to one ethnic group. This is called indirect discrimination. (Example: strictly speaking it would be legal for a landlord to advertise for tenants saying 'Christians only', but in an area with many non-Christian Asian people, maybe the advert indirectly discriminates against them.)

[b]
[color=darkred]At the moment, other laws give special protection to Christians:

* Christians are protected by the blasphemy laws against their religion being publicly insulted. These laws were passed many years ago when almost the whole population would have said they were Christian, and when the Christian religion was much more a part of everyday life. [/color]No-one has been punished for this crime for a long time[color=darkred], but it may seem odd to the Britkids that it's a crime to insult the god that Christians believe in but not a crime to insult the god that Sikhs or Jews believe in.[/color][/b] It's complicated though. Don't mix this up with the law against stirring up religious hatred, which is different.

[i][size=9](My highlights; text of link presented in full)[/size]
[/i]

"Your second link" wrote:

Furthermore, these provisions do not seek to prevent freedom of expression, nor specifically; criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; proselytising one’s own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practicing theirs; telling jokes about religions; or expressing antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents. All of which objections have been raised by those who fear the introduction of this legislation.

Jews and Sikhs are already covered by the incitement to racial hatred legislation, regardless of whether material is religiously or racially motivated, however this has not prevented either robust criticism or debate of those religions and communities, nor has it prevented the telling of jokes.

[size=9][i]From the 8th and 9th paragraphs as directed.[/i][/size]
[/list:u]
If anything in there supports your strange claim that criticism of the Jewish religion is a crime please point it out.

It's very smart what you do!
Slide of hand.

I used to be a security guard a long time ago. This woman used to come in a lot. Well dressed, smart looking and about 38 years old. She would come in and spend about ten minutes in the make up section ending up buying the something cheap for about a pound. Until one day, for some reason I got curios as to why she spent so much time there. Asked a girl at the counter and she said she buys the same thing more or less every time she comes in. Next time she came in, I stood there watched her. Not only that the manager of the store was there also.

I went to the CCTV room and watched her on there. Something was wrong I just couldn’t see it. Rewind after rewind, and finally it clicked. This woman was a magician/illusionist. She would pick up a nail polish and shake it vigorously and look at it making you look that hand. Now when she’s doing that she’s slipping the other nail polish in to her bag. Misdirection!

Quote from the second link:
The legislation prohibiting the incitement of racial hatred protects Sikhs and Jews but not Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians or Christians or others as Sikhs and Jews are included in the definition of a racial group, but other religions are not.

The cartoons, without a doubt, incite hatred (from both sides). Depicting a set of people as terrorists. It's not racial because Muslims are not of one race so hence within law. The Satanic verses incite hatred. They depict the very foundations of Islam as some what twisted, evil and horrific in parts.

Off the topic of law. Is it really fine that we are allowed to make a mockery of nearly everything? Making a mockery of family life, law, religion etc makes people loose respect for what society was founded on. That’s why today we have dysfunctional families and societies.

Edit. As for the qutoes of the BritKid website, I was weary of posting that as I felt it was a Brit Supremest site.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie is a crony. He does not represent Muslims in Britain.

"mmm" wrote:

It's very smart what you do!
Slide of hand.

What you said was not correct. I challenged it because a law specifically against criticism of Judaism would have pretty damaging repercussions. You told me to check your links and specified paragraphs, exactly what I then quoted, and it does not support what you said.

Following that you accused me of misdirection and promptly changed subject. What you subsequently quoted is explaining why the law was amended having previously specified that Jews and Sikhs each constitute a race, which was deemed inadequate for protecting adherents of other faiths from racism. So you then tried to support yourself by smearing me and quoting something out of context. Your suggestion that there is perpetually something sneaky going on with me, incidentally, comparing me to a shoplifter, is so below the belt that I nearly didn't respond. It is the most despicable affront I have faced on the forums in quite a long time.

There is no case to suggest that Rushdie incites religious hatred. Arguably some of the cartoons do, and a fit response under that law would have been a dignified court case. The fact that there have been threatening protests in response to both instances, and that people have been killed in response to the fatwas against Rushdie, pretty much makes a mockery of any subsequent appeal to law. Those amount to far more tangible evidence of incitement to hatred, and murder.

there was this response to the satanic verses from ahmed deedat.. pure class, been looking for the link..

bu its funny that he got the honour especially since he talks of having sex with the queen in his book..

each to their own i guess.

Ya'qub and yashmaki,

"I" wrote:

yashmaki, your comment is incorrect about literature insulting the Jewish faith. Your holy book for starters.

"Ya'qub" wrote:

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

yashmaki, your comment is incorrect about literature insulting the Jewish faith. Your holy book for starters.

I disagree, ONLY insulting things about Judaism or Jews is *sometimes* added in commentaries and translations of the Qur'an, but there is nothing against Judaism in the actual text. Rather, CERTAIN members of the Children of Israel who were arrogant and ungrateful are presented as an example to us (not to become arrogant or ungrateful).

"I" wrote:

As long as your interpretation of the Qu'ran on Jews is reasonable there's no point my making any other case, but there's quite an array of verses used by jihadi types against me in my earlier visits to this forum.

I apologise for using that as an example.

"malik" wrote:

Sir Iqbal Sacranie is a crony. He does not represent Muslims in Britain.

He used to but not any more, there's a new Secretary General now.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

"mmm" wrote:

It's very smart what you do!
Slide of hand.

What you said was not correct. I challenged it because a law specifically against criticism of Judaism would have pretty damaging repercussions. You told me to check your links and specified paragraphs, exactly what I then quoted, and it does not support what you said.

Following that you accused me of misdirection and promptly changed subject. What you subsequently quoted is explaining why the law was amended having previously specified that Jews and Sikhs each constitute a race, which was deemed inadequate for protecting adherents of other faiths from racism. So you then tried to support yourself by smearing me and quoting something out of context. Your suggestion that there is perpetually something sneaky going on with me, incidentally, comparing me to a shoplifter, is so below the belt that I nearly didn't respond. It is the most despicable affront I have faced on the forums in quite a long time.

There is no case to suggest that Rushdie incites religious hatred. Arguably some of the cartoons do, and a fit response under that law would have been a dignified court case. The fact that there have been threatening protests in response to both instances, and that people have been killed in response to the fatwas against Rushdie, pretty much makes a mockery of any subsequent appeal to law. Those amount to far more tangible evidence of incitement to hatred, and murder.

Why? Why do you always get on the defensive? Or turn things into an act of aggression/discredit towards you? My heart does really bleed for you! Comparing you to a shoplifter was never my intention but if it makes you feel better to play the victim, then yes it was.
http://www.therevival.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3673

I promptly changed the subject? Do you think that my posts are all meant for you? Well if you feel like I don’t pay you enough attention then say so!

As for that law, some may deem it to be archaic, maybe as archaic as salman rushdie and his escapade to fame. The law was in place 1976.

So someone in Iran makes a Fatwa and some in Pakistan jumps on a bus burning an effigy of salman the cursed rushdie and I can’t make an appeal to the law? Am I responsible for Ayatollahs and popadoms? You see this is where you generalise and show your prejudice.

mmm, you were offensive towards me. Period.

"mmm" wrote:

It's very smart what you do!
Slide of hand.

I used to be a security guard a long time ago. This woman used to come in a lot. Well dressed, smart looking and about 38 years old. She would come in and spend about ten minutes in the make up section ending up buying the something cheap for about a pound. Until one day, for some reason I got curios as to why she spent so much time there. Asked a girl at the counter and she said she buys the same thing more or less every time she comes in. Next time she came in, I stood there watched her. Not only that the manager of the store was there also.

I went to the CCTV room and watched her on there. Something was wrong I just couldn’t see it. Rewind after rewind, and finally it clicked. This woman was a magician/illusionist. She would pick up a nail polish and shake it vigorously and look at it making you look that hand. Now when she’s doing that she’s slipping the other nail polish in to her bag. Misdirection!

Citing my posts to Showkat in another thread, where I pointed out that he is concertedly promoting an Islamist agenda, doesn't really add up.

You can discuss the law, I didn't suggest otherwise.