An article on the situation...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1951462.ece

Question:
Should Salmon Rushdie have been given the honor of Knighthood???

Choices:
Yes
No

 

Seems a bit fishy to me.

The article focuses on calls for violence. I am guilty of ignorance in understanding the Muslim mind.

"...a government minister in Pakistan said yesterday that Rushdie’s recent knighthood justified suicide bombing."

"Hardliners in Iran revived calls for his murder yesterday."

"The Organisation to Commemorate Martyrs of the Muslim World, a fringe hardline group, offered a reward of $150,000 (£75,000) to any successful assassin."

I certainly can't say that I understand the Knighthood thing in general, if it's just an "honour" then Rushdie deserves it.

If anything he's shown how ineffectual the extremists are at accomplishing a goal since he's had a death threat out on him for over 20 years now. People calling for killing over blasphemy should be put be away somewhere comfortable for the rest of their lives. It's not been just a Muslim thing, but an issue of all religions at some point and time. It's just amazing how a basic tenet like "Thou shall not kill" can be worked around so easily by those that feel themselves the most devout.

quote:

Originally posted by aminator2002:
I certainly can't say that I understand the Knighthood thing in general, if it's just an "honour" then Rushdie deserves it.

A knighthood is invariably awarded to someone who is pre-eminent in their field, as a mark of public acknowledgment of, and gratitude for, their achievements. The female equivalent of knight is dame. Salman Rushdie's was for services to literature.

The award is the highest granted, with the exception of a life peerage (Baron or Baroness, styled 'Lord ' and 'Lady' or 'Baroness' )However it is commonly regarded as the greater honour. That's because a peerage is often granted for political reasons or in return for favours to a political party. For example,Mr Winston Churchill, himself the son of a lord and grandson of a duke, refused a personal peerage and would accept only a knighthood, hence 'Sir Winston Churchill'. This was a statement on the perceived merits of the respective honours.

Nobody should be given knighthoods. The honors system is a farce (although it might be fun if, in the original spirit of the title, nominees were given battle-axes and told to have at each other to prove themselves).

The criteria for being made a 'Sir' are a mystery, particularly in the field of arts and entertainment, so it's difficult to say whether Rushdie is any more or less deserving than, say, Elton John or Morecambe and Wise.

The timing of Rushdie's knighthood is odd. Why now? He has been a one-hit wonder in literature, hasn't he? "Midnight's Children" was an impressive and important book, but nothing he's done since has come anywhere close. Has anyone read "Satanic Verses", the book that's causing all the fuss? It's hardly a page-turner - more a self-indulgent and failed stab at magical realism; probably great fun to write, but a chore to read.

I guess Rushdie's honour is kind of like John Wayne's Oscar; it's difficult to say what exactly it's for, except being in the business long enough - or maybe symbolising something that the award givers want to publicly acknowledge (which is maybe how the protestors at Rushdie's award see things).

quote:

The article focuses on calls for violence.

There are always going to be a few quotable hot-heads and fanatics. On the other hand, polls in the US suggest that about 30% of people there support Bush's actions in Iraq. This implies that they believe, or can somehow justify to themselves, or don't care, that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed for no good reason. I guess that kind of 'call to violence' doesn't make as good copy as the up-close-and-personal demands for Rushdie's assassination, but isn't the tacit support for industrial-scale slaughter worse?