This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Threat of Violence Quashes Even Virtual Rushdie Appearance

Threat of Violence Quashes Even Virtual Rushdie Appearance - Comments

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 1 by Premiseless

Allah, where were you for the Australians for 40,000 years?

Geographically challenged gods can now learn all about their naivety on the science of the internet!

Here is Australia, Allah - and the people were Aborigines.

Where were you all those years??

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:04:47 UTC | #911341

Daryl 's Avatar Comment 2 by Daryl

Premiseless, it's easy. Lightspeed. that's the limit. So don't worry, right now I think all the gods are busy putting down a Cylon insurrection at Epsilon Eridani or someplace. So just give it a few eons. We are on the itinerary.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:19:06 UTC | #911346

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 3 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:24:27 UTC | #911348

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 4 by glenister_m

"‘‘We are all for freedom of expression but it has to come with responsibility,’’ said Salim Engineer, a member of Islamic group Jamaat-e-Islami, which is part of the Rajasthan Muslim Forum. ‘‘We have a problem with the video conference because we are sure he would say something provocative,’’ he said. ‘‘What if he reads something from ‘The Satanic Verses’?’’

Mr. Engineer said he has not read ‘‘The Satanic Verses,’’ but said that it has ‘‘derogatory remarks against Islam, the prophet and the Holy Koran. He has called verses from the Koran satanic verses,’’ he said."

Isn't it your responsibility to read what a book contains before you protest/ban it?

I'm reminded of a comedian illustrating the cognitive disconnect of those Muslim spokespeople who had to support the original fatwa to the media: "Yes, of course we are for freedom of speech and human rights, but Salman Rushdie must be killed, and he must be killed slowly..."

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:36:05 UTC | #911351

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 5 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:52:33 UTC | #911358

Moderator's Avatar Comment 6 by Moderator

Moderators' message

Please remember that this is a site for rational, intelligent discussion. There have been some truly appalling instances of Muslim threats against free expression recently, and we share many users' anger at this and are 100% in our opposition to this kind of threatening behaviour; but rational, intelligent discussion requires more than knee-jerk expressions of anger or, worse, hatred. Please do not post anything on this site that would bring the cause of reason into disrepute.

Thank you.

The Mods

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:04:17 UTC | #911361

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 7 by rod-the-farmer

Moderator....Based on your note, I am not clear on which side was threatening violence against whom ? Could you clarify this please ?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:37:35 UTC | #911368

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 8 by Steve Zara

Comment 4 by glenister_m

Isn't it your responsibility to read what a book contains before you protest/ban it?

An interesting point. I mean, if the book is that dangerous, perhaps you dare not read it!

This reminds me of the situation of UK film censors, who sometimes have to watch the very films that they then have to say are unsuitable for anyone to watch.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:44:48 UTC | #911370

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 9 by Vorlund

the real enemies are “the leaders, the Deobandis, the various extremist leaders and their followers, who behave like this, because what they do is to strengthen the extremely negative image of Islam as an intolerant, repressive, and violent culture,” he said.

They don't strengthen it, they tell it how it is, islam is intolerant, repressive and is predicated on the threat of violence or actual violence to dissenters and if you happen to disagree with how peaceful islam is you wil be threatened with violence!

I'm not sure Rushdie said Koranic verses were satanic at all, my understanding is he wrote about an episode in the life of a barbaric brigand who allegedly withdrew some verses from his koran on the basis that he (the aforesaid brigand) thought they'd been provided by satan in a deception.

Anyhow getting their arses in a sling over his image is about as ridiculous as they can get.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:51:57 UTC | #911372

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 10 by Premiseless

Comment 4 by glenister_m :

"‘‘We are all for freedom of expression but it has to come with responsibility,’’ said Salim Engineer,

Mr. Engineer said he has not read ‘‘The Satanic Verses,’’ but said that it has ‘‘derogatory remarks against Islam, the prophet and the Holy Koran. He has called verses from the Koran satanic verses,’’ he said."

But this is the problem Mr Engineer. We are taking responsibility!

And we are not being derogatory, we are simply pointing out the fact the Quran is fiction, and Islam is a myth.

The learned minds are bringing you thousands of years of learning to HELP YOU ALL!

The prophet is not Muhammad! It is IN THE LEARNED MINDS OF THE 21st CENTURY.

What more could you ask for ?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:19:31 UTC | #911377

chawinwords's Avatar Comment 11 by chawinwords

Remember, it is impossible for them to consider one simple question: could I possibly be wrong! Yep, it's that simple and that insane!

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:23:37 UTC | #911380

mlgatheist's Avatar Comment 12 by mlgatheist

Would suggesting that these violent protestors be treated for their psychotic behavior be wrong?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:32:48 UTC | #911414

mlgatheist's Avatar Comment 13 by mlgatheist

Mr. Engineer doesn't truely accept the concept of "Freedom of Speech". If he did then he would not have a problem with Mr. Rushdie attending (virtually or in person) and saying whatever he wanted. Those that disagreed with what Mr. Rushdie stated then could tell their like-minded associates that they disagree with him.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:36:25 UTC | #911416

tboulay's Avatar Comment 14 by tboulay

If it hasn't been mentioned yet, I'm sure it will be; but you know these guys only make up a tiny minority of the islamic faith. The vast majority of muslims are wonderful and gentil members of the religion of peace who would never even dream of threatening violence against Mr. Rushdie.

In fact the average muslim believes in freedom of speech and expression to such a degree that they wouldn't dream of even trying to curtail the free speech & expression of the minority who are threatening violence. Some people say that the majority staying silent when violent threats like this are made are enabling the minority, if they mean enabling them with the liberating freedom of murderous threats, then I guess they are... they love freedom of speech THAT MUCH!

Seriously, where are they? If free speech / expression is being quashed at a literary festivle of all places, every single person there attending should be mad as hell and saying it loudly until the athorities stand up and stop this insanity.

But, the fact of the matter is that the average member of the religion of peace, while they may not issue threats of violence themselves, they don't particularly want anyone to be able to critizise their religion. Sure, they'll put up with it, but if some whack job from the 'minority' threatens violence and the speaker decides not to come out of fear for their life, they're certinly not crying over his absence.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:14:45 UTC | #911433

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 15 by Philoctetes

Of course "moderate" muslims are not going to speak out against the violence. What do you expect, even non-muslim political leaders in the country will not speak out against it. What is the point of free speech and democracy if its supporters (in this case in India) are to scared to endorse it?

Perhaps they are right. They are giving the right of free speech to those who wish it denied to others. Unfortunately subscribing to the notion of free speech means having to hear the rabid ravings of the deluded.

An answer is to tolerate the verbal vitriol, but crack down hard when it is translated into violence and intimidation. You cannot legislate against idiocy, but you can against idiotic behaviour. Sadly there is no simple answer. People eh?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:39:31 UTC | #911441

HuntingGoodWill's Avatar Comment 16 by HuntingGoodWill

Comment 15 by ///////////////////////////////////////// :

An answer is to tolerate the verbal vitriol, but crack down hard when it is translated into violence and intimidation. You cannot legislate against idiocy, but you can against idiotic behaviour. Sadly there is no simple answer. People eh?

You can legislate against idiocy. It's called "Moar educamation". lol Seriously though. We are only surprised by the amount of verbal vitriol, which is ready to be translated into physical threats/intimidation/violence.

The problem in India, as a country of such old and rich religious tradition, is that representatives of the state often ENDORSE charlatans and wannabe-gurus. Just look at that pedophile and pretender, Sai Baba. Does it get more grotesque than that?

Here comes the most shocking observation; besides LESS physical violence and threats, the reality in countries like the USA is exactly the same. Yes, the same amount of people want figures like Dawkins or Harris to burn in hell, but on the other hand, a smaller number wants to actively help them get there.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:49:55 UTC | #911494

Chala's Avatar Comment 17 by Chala

'Religion poisons everything.' So, we have yet another example. A minority spurred by religion has denied the majority.

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:30:31 UTC | #911964