Vaz Deference


by Sid (Faisal)
16th February, 2009 at 5:40 pm    

The Geert Wilders episode has been a self-fulfilling farce. A Dutch MP in a blonde bouffant, who happens to be a neo-Nazi and a race supremacist, wins accolades for himself by pretending to stand up for freedom of speech by demanding the ban of the Quran, thus depriving the right of others to read it. On the other side, a number of agitated and perturbed Muslims confirmed the perception that Muslims transform into angry, violent thugs whenever they feel their “deeply held beliefs” have been personally insulted by threatening to kill Wilders by violent means over the screening of his film.

To add to the hilarity, take a look at the video (below) of a Newsnight report broadcast last Thursday night. Keith Vaz, Labour MP of Leicester, pretends to engage knowledgeably on the intricate points of the issue of freedom of speech that underlies the whole episode. Instead his ruse is blown when it becomes apparent that not only does he wilfully misunderstand the fundamentals of FoS, he has come on a discussion on Wilders’ 18 minute film on national television without even having seen the film.

He then proceeds to self destruct in a thunderous self-inflicted detonation, causing blood, sperm and liquid bullshit dripping off the studio furniture. Leaving the other protaganists in the discussion to carry on with the semblence of a conversation, while the fulminated entrails of Vaz’s credibility twitched involuntarily around them.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,EDL,Religion






80 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. An unhappy anniversary « Frank Owen’s Paintbrush

    [...] Vaz is still managing to embarrass himself when it comes to free speech issues. Although I did not have an especially strong opinion on the question of whether preventing Geert Wilders (crazy name, crazy hair, crazy guy!) from entering the UK was the appropriate course of action, I think if I had been invited onto Newsnight to discuss Wilders’ film I would have made the effort to watch it before being my opinions were to be broadcast to the nation. Watch the Newsnight discussion here.  [...]


  2. Atlas Shrugs Meets Geert Wilders in the USA « Tony Blair

    [...] Place selected this as blog of the month. It superbly highlights how abso… blooming… lutely useless our present crop of MPs are [...]




  1. David T — on 16th February, 2009 at 5:53 pm  

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    *draws breath*

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    From the title onwards, this is a genius post.

  2. Farid Ali — on 16th February, 2009 at 6:04 pm  

    The QF are doing some great work! They were on the BBC today speaking about importance on due process in law. Maajid Nawaz really undermined Vaz!

    MCB and Inayat must be wishing they retained the Quilliam talent and leadership!

  3. Katy Newton — on 16th February, 2009 at 6:12 pm  

    I love Ed Husain’s point at the beginning, that Geert Wilder shouldn’t have been invited to the HL in the first place, but that once he had been he should have been allowed to say his piece and then be challenged. It’s basically the whole FOS argument in a nutshell.

  4. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 6:15 pm  

    A Palin moment for Vaz. I really haven’t paid him that much attention, except to note that most people found him slippery, shallow and without moral grounding. This clip drives the point home convincingly.

    What kind of (horribly misplaced) arrogance lets someone go on bloody Newsnight to debate a film he hasn’t even watched? And that ‘You can always fly to Amsterdam’ bleating was met with the contempt it deserved.

    And I agree with David T. Brilliant title (how long have you been waiting to use that line, Sid?).

  5. David T — on 16th February, 2009 at 6:28 pm  

    Now Brett is pissed off because he wanted to use that line himself, but you beat him to it.

    Trufax: Vaz has some form of ‘relationship’ with the fake and hugely dodgy ‘lawyer’, Mireskandari, whose firm tried to sue me over an article I wrote about the fugitive Hamas commmander, Sawalha:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4796188.ece

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054481/Liar-crook-friend-billionaires-royalty–meet-lawyer-whos-tearing-Met-apart.html

    But since his firm was closed down, I haven’t had any more letters from them.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1103270/Law-firm-race-row-links-Labours-Keith-Vaz-closed-watchdog.html

  6. Sunny — on 16th February, 2009 at 6:40 pm  

    The man only helps push more brown people to vote Tory. Heh.

  7. A Councillor Writes — on 16th February, 2009 at 6:47 pm  

    Keith Vaz really is very good at being a useful idiot. I’m surprised they didn’t run out the other one as well – Khalid Mahmood.

  8. Silent Hunter — on 16th February, 2009 at 6:57 pm  

    Well doesn’t that just sum up ‘Lord’ Vaz of Slime………..

    Apparently one doesn’t need to have reviewed any evidence before coming to a judgement about a case.

    All “very New Labour” LOL

    I hope the good people of Leicester remember than when next voting for an MP. But perhaps he can rely on the Labour Tribal Vote or failing that; all those dodgy postal votes that Labour are so fond of in marginal constituencies.

    Could we have a General Election please……..this Labour government is starting to stink to high heavens.

  9. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 6:59 pm  

    Not a good thing, Sunny.

    I really hate it when someone who gets a huge amount of money and status for knowing about stuff turns out to know less about that stuff than I do, when I actually know very little.

    It wouldn’t happen anywhere else. I mean, imagine a surgeon showing up for an appendectomy and saying ‘Well, I haven’t checked where the appendix is, but it’s probably this big throbbing thing on the left side of the chest cavity. Let’s have it out.’

  10. Edsa — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:06 pm  

    I thought Vaz was brilliant at the Newsnight session – his argument was marked by logical consistency and clarity of thought. There is no freedom of thought without accompanying RESPONSIBILITY TO your target audience. If you have the right to offend, they have an equal right to be offended My freedom to fulminate must not threaten another’s wellbeing. Mainstream politicians and media only harp on one side of the equation. They never talk of responsibility to the weak and vulnerable.
    By the way, I notice that K Vaz and the Muslim MPs do speak up on these abstract but where are the Hindu MPs hiding?

  11. Refresh — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:18 pm  

    I can see the merit in watching the video before commenting, but is it such a big thing. Really?

    I have just passed this comment without reviewing the Newsnight clip.

    I mean I have on occasion passed many comments on footballers and football games, and I’ve never been able to sit through a game.

    In the case of Wilders, given his own words and demands its relatively easy to extrapolate what his video says and what he wants.

    There seem to be more comment on how the Quilliam boys would handle it than everybody else. So the thread is more about ‘bigging’ up Quilliam than it is in tackling Geert Wilders. And yet we’ve not seen much from QB directly. So can we pass judgement on their performance without evidence?

  12. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:25 pm  

    Oh look its the asurd narcissist David “free speech” T

    The man who calls for preachers he doesnt like to be arrested , free speech to be restricted
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/15/uksecurity-islam and bans/deletes critical comments from his website

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  13. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:27 pm  

    Farid Ali

    “The QF are doing some great work! They were on the BBC today speaking about importance on due process in law. Maajid Nawaz really undermined Vaz!

    MCB and Inayat must be wishing they retained the Quilliam talent and leadership!”

    When were they ever part of the MCB?

  14. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:34 pm  

    Majid Nawaz says Wilders wants to ban “Islamists”

    No Majid he wants to ban the Quran

  15. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:42 pm  

    More hypocrisy from the Wilders supporters

    Sid has banned/deleted numerous posts he didnt like
    His support for a Quran hater is highly intriguing for someone who pushes his Muslim creditentials.
    and Vaz isnt that bad

    P,S Sid love the bit at the end of the video “Spineless new labour cowards, totally brainwashed with multiculturist, anti-western..”.

    Did you get this from the Brussels Journal Sid?

    Ed Husain has called for HT to be banned though they are non violent

  16. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:43 pm  

    I mean I have on occasion passed many comments on footballers and football games, and I’ve never been able to sit through a game.

    Might be a good idea to stop doing it. People have probably noticed, and remark upon it when you are not in the room.

  17. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:45 pm  

    Refresh
    “There seem to be more comment on how the Quilliam boys would handle it than everybody else. So the thread is more about ‘bigging’ up Quilliam than it is in tackling Geert Wilders.”

    Exactly. Sid is desperate to big them up though they are turly pathethic. Do you know that Ed Husain refused a couple of times to appear of panels with the same “Islamists” he claims QF was set up to conteract.

    Anyway one of Sid’s relatives was killed by Jammat e Islami dont you know

  18. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:48 pm  

    Sid
    ” Instead his ruse is blown when it becomes apparent that not only does he wilfully misunderstand the fundamentals of FoS, he has come on a discussion on Wilders’ 18 minute film on national television without even having seen the film.”

    Yet people all the time start mouthing off about Islam without knowing a thing about it.

    Indeed Sid you started going on about jihad only to admit you didnt actually know what it was and requesting an explanation. LOL

    You also implied Sufis and Ulema were two discrete categories then mentioned ulema close to the Mughals … all of whom were part of Sufi tariqas!! LOL

    You mentioned Hallaj the sufi though hes a relatively minor figure bigged up by orientalists (for example there is no tariqa which follows his path) and how the ulema condemned him and the sufis supported him, blissfully unaware that a Sufi you had quoted before Imam Junaid supported his execution !!! and Hanbali ulema (the most strict) like Ibn Aqil praised him. Seriously you are clueless. LOL

  19. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:48 pm  

    His support for a Quran hater…

    Yeah, I believe he does a line in ‘i ‘heart’ wilders’ T-shirts with a fucking kitten on the front.

  20. Imran Khan — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:52 pm  

    Katy – Ed Hussein’s point is nonsense and I can’t see why everyone is jumping in to support him or even Majid Nawaz.

    1. QF were not invited to the screening at the HoL and so they couldn’t have held a debate. They are just after publicty and jumping on the bandwagon.

    2. Majid Nawaz’s point that he wants to debate him in this country and he is being denied this opportunity is sheer showmanship and nonsense. He has £1 million pounds of tax payers money and he can set-up a debate using satellite technology. So again this is in fact a false point he is making.

    3. Anyone can set-up a debate with Geert Wilders by using modern technology but these people want to make an issue in the media.

    4. If Ed Hussein and Majid Nawaz are so protective of their religion as thyey claim then why did it take an invitation by Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and a Government ban for them to decide they wanted to defend their faith. Come on people if they truely meant this they would have asked for a debate at the time and not jumped in when the media hyped up the story.

    Are these people saviours or are they in fact jumping on the bandwagon?

    Also they say they are an anti-extremism thinktank then why are they only at media events as if they are circus showman?

    Why have QF failed to take part in the Anti-Semitism intiative? Maybe not enough publicity again?

    That debate was full of self-serving people whose only aim was to big themselves up and nothing more.

    It is very difficult to ban free speech in any country with internet access. QF can easily have a debate with Wilders even sitting here in the UK with modern technology. The only time they have entered this issue is when it became a media issue.

    Also the self-serving Reverand may want to look at his own faith and scripture to see verses which have been userd for violent means and to start wars and why doesn’t he debate those? Why doesn’t he debate with George W. Bush who started a war in the name of his religion after talking to God and feeling it was sanctioned by his religious beliefs? A war which cost millions of people their lives.

    Keith Vazmay not have aquitted himself well but the self-serving nonsense the other two were on simply means thgat this has become a circus where peopel are jumping in for media attention.

    QF is doing nothing but blowing hot air and their failure to even get engaged on this issue until after events started shows their complete ineffectiveness.

    Sid – For a so called anti-extremism thinktank why are they sniffing behidn the media on events and not leading them? Why did “Ed” and Majid not engage Wilders before the media became interested in the story if they are defending their religion?

    QF is a 1 million pound white elephant that isn’t doing anythign to combat extremism and isn’t showing effective leadership. They lack vision to actually progress and are simply a hot air talking shop interested only in media focus.

    They could have debated with Wilders when Fitna was launched and they didn’t because there was no pressmilage and the debate proposal only came about when there was press milage. Interestingly my point is made within the interview itself – the Rev. said he wanted to debate the same verses and does so at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. Did Majid Nawaz accept the debate to defend his faith as he claimed? No he didn’t.

    He only appears to accept debate when the media are around. So his claims are not validated even within that interview where he was offered a debate by a Wilders Supporter and he didn’t accept and yet people are making him out to be some kind of hero.

    A “hero” who talks the talk of wanting to debate in his own country and when an offer is made to him to come to Hyde Park on a chilly Spring morning he lets it pass as if it didn’t happen.

    Come on people get a grip QF didn’t accept a debate with a Wilders Supporter in Hyde Park despite beig given our tax money and they have failed to engage today with the Jewish Community to discuss antisemitism and this is the so called chosen anti extremism think tank you keep bigging up!!!!!!!!

    Its all hot air because they don’t work at the grassroots, they don’t work in their own community and they only engage when the media are there. Some think tank.

  21. Imran Khan — on 16th February, 2009 at 7:53 pm  

    Blah – “Anyway one of Sid’s relatives was killed by Jammat e Islami dont you know”

    Blah this isn’t a fair point to debate and you’ve said it once so please kindly stop bringing this up.

  22. Refresh — on 16th February, 2009 at 8:03 pm  

    ‘Might be a good idea to stop doing it. People have probably noticed, and remark upon it when you are not in the room.’

    I think I got away with it, come on lets face it there are only so many thing you can do with a bag full of air. LOL.

  23. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 8:09 pm  

    “Yeah, I believe he does a line in ‘i ‘heart’ wilders’ T-shirts with a fucking kitten on the front.”

    Don youre a genius. Forget plasma TV and £85,000 salaries you found the next project QF can invest its anti-extremism cash into. They could force all Imams to wear them (after all they want Imams to dress western) ,

    BTW Cant Majid afford a flight to Holland? He could go instead on making Hajj or Umra.

    Or did he blow our £1m on an indoor nightclub ? (mmm not sure which traditional schools in Islam allow nightclubbing)

  24. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 8:11 pm  

    Blah – “Anyway one of Sid’s relatives was killed by Jammat e Islami dont you know”

    “Imran Khan

    Blah this isn’t a fair point to debate and you’ve said it once so please kindly stop bringing this up.”

    He himself raised it and it is highly relevant- it explains his psychological desire to put his arms around anyone who is anti “Islamist” even if they are Muslim haters.

  25. Alec — on 16th February, 2009 at 8:20 pm  

    What a horrible little man you are, Bob. I don’t know about the case, but your placing Islamist is speech marks says enough about your sympathy for the victims of such inspired violence who’re overwhelmingly Muslim or non-European… that is, you have none and profess sympathy for Muslims simply as a way of getting one over on Harry’s Place.

    Evil is a word which springs to mind.

  26. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 8:35 pm  

    deleted

  27. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 8:35 pm  

    deleted

  28. dave bones — on 16th February, 2009 at 8:44 pm  

    20. Imran Khan, I fear there might be some truth in what you are saying but I simply don’t know. I would imagine Ed, Majid, the reverend and Vaz are all doing what they think is the right thing here.

    Quilliam get x amount of govt money, we’ll see if what they get involved in justifies government spending.

    The Nederlands are known for being pretty liberal, if they have found reason to take Geert to court, maybe the governments decision to ban him just says

    “He is a trouble maker. We don’t have trouble makers here anymore. Tried that. Didn’t work.”

    Should Vaz have watched the film? Is gerrt in court for what he has said in the film or elsewhere? I don’t know.

    All he can say is that they do this on a case by case basis.

    I am not saying I support any ban on Geert simply because I think freedom of speech is a robust thing in this country at the moment.

    Its all very easy to take stances on all of this and counter stances. Its hard to say something which is just useful to everyone. There is no point in not addressing what people like Geert are saying. If what they are saying is not addressed, there will be trouble.

    Can Newsnight not arrange a satellite debate between Geert and Quilliam maybe? I really don’t know.

  29. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 8:54 pm  

    Can Newsnight not arrange a satellite debate …

    Why should they?

  30. Alec — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

    No, Bob, according to *a* Harry’s Place visitor says he is. Note my immediate response.

    I wouldn’t say, for instance, that a Pickled Politics visitor is a malevolent, psychopathic Stalinist freak who would gloat over Sid’s grief at a murdered family member in order to present himself as a protector of Muslims and Third Worlders. I would make clear that I’m referring to you.

  31. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:07 pm  
  32. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:08 pm  

    True Alec HP readers arent all loons. Though you seem to be under the impression that I, an Asian Muslim, am called Bob

    Can i call you Oloki Patti?

  33. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:12 pm  

    Alec,

    I’m confused by Bob/blah/you/ thing. Who are you and why are you here?

  34. Alec — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:13 pm  

    >> Though you seem to be under the impression that I, a Muslim, am called Bob

    And I’m a cauliflower.

  35. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:16 pm  

    Alec
    “And I’m a cauliflower.”

    You are certainly some type of vegetable

  36. Sid — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:33 pm  

    And I agree with David T. Brilliant title (how long have you been waiting to use that line, Sid?).

    Don,

    Ever since I can remember Keith Vaz appearing on telly – and I think I actually saw his frist TV appearance: Eastern Eye on Channel 4, 1983?

    And for long as I’ve seen him, he’s always given the impression of being a slimy invertebrate.

    The title also comes from one my dad’s old medical puns, which goes like this:

    Q: What did the Epididymis say to the Urethra?
    A: There’s a Vas Deferens between us.

    Oh how we laughed.

  37. dave bones — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:36 pm  

    Can Newsnight not arrange a satellite debate …

    Why should they?

    Fuck knows. Something useful for Quilliam to do? Value for taxpayers money? Majid is fairly much right in what he says here. Geert is portraying Al- Qaida’s philosophy and the Koranic verses they use to justify themsleves. Read any Jihadi literature whihc justifies terrorism, these verses are used.

    This whole thing looks a bit stupid to me. Its easy to take stances and argue them. Its hard to combat radicalism from government or terrorists.

  38. Alec — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:38 pm  

    Can anyone think of reasons why one may be indisposed to Jamaat because of a death in 1971?

    >> If a person is still grieving I suggest he would be a pretty mess up psychologically.

    See what’s been done here, boys and girls? I did not suggest Sid would be prevented from pursuing his day-to-day activities through his grief – only that he would have negative feelings towards the killers of this family member (if the story is true, which I don’t know).

    This is a fairly basic human response and empathy would involve appreciating it. Even if, as I’d understood that Sid is a convert who’d married a Muslim woman, his feelings would be based on compassion towards his wife.

    This specimen, however, still insists in twisting the knife and continues to declare that to continue to feel the sense of loss 38 years after the fact is a sign of mental instability.

    My aunt’s mother died 67 years ago, and she still mourns her.

    >> Even more so if he’s Muslim.

    You’re disgusting.

  39. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:47 pm  

    “See what’s been done here, boys and girls? I did not suggest Sid would be prevented from pursuing his day-to-day activities through his grief – only that he would have negative feelings towards the killers of this family member (if the story is true, which I don’t know).

    This is a fairly basic human response and empathy would involve appreciating it”

    I have a great deal of empathy. Using a family tragedy to demonise and persue innocent people who have the most tenous connection to it is unacceptable though and is oppurtunism. As is implying that terrorists and “Islamists” (stupid made up name) are the same

    “Bob, however, still insists in twisting the knife and continues to declare that to continue to feel the sense of loss 38 years after the fact is a sign of mental instability.”

    Why do you keep repeating Im some guy named Bob sabzi?
    Thats a sure sign of mental instability.

  40. Shamit — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:49 pm  

    “From what I gather Sids family member died in the 1971 war”

    What war? It was a genocide committed by Muslims on other Muslims.

    Blah you are pathetic and a coward too. And if you want to have an argument why hide behind a screen man. Name a time and place, and I will organise the debate and guess what if you show up, any one of us those you dislike such as Sid, Jai, Ravi or myself would wipe the floor with you.

    But you are a little coward — and so you won’t show up would you?

  41. Shamit — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:50 pm  

    you and those thugs from Ram Sena have a lot of similarities — too bad you guys hate each other. man you are so alike its unbelievable.

    On wiping the floor with you — ie on your best day. and you dont have that many good days do you now as we all know.

    come on now name the place and time and we will show up.

  42. Alec — on 16th February, 2009 at 9:54 pm  

    >> Anyway one of Sid’s relatives was killed by Jammat e Islami dont you know

    >> I have a great deal of empathy.

    Like fuck you do.

    >> Using a family tragedy to demonise and persue innocent people who have the most tenous connection to it is unacceptable though and is oppurtunism.

    Presumably you have evidence of this which contradicts Sid’s less than flattering description of Wilders, or are you in fact a malevolent, psychopathic Stalinist freak?

  43. blah — on 16th February, 2009 at 10:12 pm  

    Alec Ive just worked out who it is you think I am and why you keep calling me Bob. Is it Bob Pitt the guy who runs Islamophobia watch? I am not him nor have I ever met- I do however have the greatest admiration for him and the work he does combating Islamophobia. The fact you hate someone who fights Islamophobia shows what a bunch of Muslim hating zionist turds you are at Hasbaras Place.

    “or are you in fact a malevolent, psychopathic Stalinist freak?”

    No Im a Sunni Muslim. Stalin was a dajjal and Stalinism is kufr. And you are a pagal who belongs in a pagal khana.

  44. Refresh — on 16th February, 2009 at 10:42 pm  

    This thread is getting rather intemperate. There are two comments that are marked up ‘deleted’. Why?

    I want to know what they say. I do. Also are they self-deletes or work of a moderator?

    And can we finally settle it. The Quilliam Boys have won the day. Everybody is pretty s*** except them.

    And no one gets to put Geert Wilders right. Or shall we wait for his appearance in court in his own country? And will QF be turning up to hold press conferences outside the court?

    We have had two threads, one of which was slippery as hell, which directly hammer anyone who opposed Wilders visit, all because Quilliam Foundation claim they lost their chance to debate Geert Wilders on home territory.

    I don’t believe a word of it. Its all BS.

    Come on Pickled Politics, can we get serious about this? Lets sponsor Ed and Majid to go to Wilder’s trial – it would save the taxpayer a few pennies.

    We can call it ‘Ed & Maj Go Dutch’.

  45. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 11:18 pm  

    Refresh,
    Mine was a self delete. Should have said.

    It was just getting too ridiculous.And is now…sub-prime.

  46. Don — on 16th February, 2009 at 11:21 pm  

    Ok, now seriously.Take it elsewhere. Get a room. Go away.

  47. Sunny — on 16th February, 2009 at 11:52 pm  

    There’s no point even writing ‘delete’, I just the nuke the stuff.

  48. Sunny — on 16th February, 2009 at 11:53 pm  

    We can call it ‘Ed & Maj Go Dutch’.

    LOL

  49. fug — on 17th February, 2009 at 12:19 am  

    not having seen the film isnt a crime, by itself, when talking about a subject.

    the individual resistor need not allow themselves to be sullied by filth, yet still perceive more about said act of violence than press junkied dumb tanker. sounds like that classic white liberal post rushdie line… “but you raging hordes never even read the book, how can you be upset?”

  50. cjcjc — on 17th February, 2009 at 8:41 am  

    The “individual resistor”?

  51. Herman — on 17th February, 2009 at 1:10 pm  

    not having seen the film isnt a crime, by itself, when talking about a subject.

    No, but it certainly hinders your ability to argue against it effectively

  52. Sid — on 17th February, 2009 at 1:14 pm  

    A Satanic Verses anecdote from here:

    Salman Rushdie, said he always considered the reaction to “Satanic Verses” a political, not a religious problem. He noted that Iran’s government had recently ended a long war with Iraq and was highly unpopular, and so used Rushdie to regain approval.

    Few of his enemies knew anything about “Satanic Verses,” Rushdie says. Years after he was out of hiding, Rushdie met a young “British-Asian” guy who confided that he had once been a demonstrator against the author.

    “Then I read your book,” the man told him, “and I couldn’t see what the fuss was about.”

  53. Jonny Mac — on 17th February, 2009 at 1:30 pm  

    Oh Bob Pitt, you are so, so boring.

    “it Bob Pitt the guy who runs Islamophobia watch? I am not him nor have I ever met- I do however have the greatest admiration for him and the work he does combating Islamophobia.” Big head!

  54. munir — on 17th February, 2009 at 1:44 pm  

    sid

    “Salman Rushdie, said he always considered the reaction to “Satanic Verses” a political, not a religious problem. He noted that Iran’s government had recently ended a long war with Iraq and was highly unpopular, and so used Rushdie to regain approval.

    Few of his enemies knew anything about “Satanic Verses,” Rushdie says. Years after he was out of hiding, Rushdie met a young “British-Asian” guy who confided that he had once been a demonstrator against the author.

    “Then I read your book,” the man told him, “and I couldn’t see what the fuss was about.” ”

    Well Rushdie would say that wouldnt he? Khuswant Singh a Sikh writer read the book before its publication and said it was deeply offensive and would cause a great deal of trouble. The idea that no one who criticized the book read it is garbage. there were numerous Muslim critiques- Ziaudiin Sardars “­­Distorted Imagination” was a particularly good deconstruction.

  55. Jai — on 17th February, 2009 at 1:47 pm  

    Shamit,

    Following on from your posts #40 & 41, I think that one constructive way for Blah to address his apparent concerns about what happens in Hindu temples and Sikh gurdwaras “undercover” (as he mentioned on the “Pork” thread) would be to simply visit these places himself.

    Regarding Hindu temples, I would recommend the Swaminarayan mandir in Neasden and the Bhaktivedanta/”Hare Krishna” temple near Watford; they’re usually open all year round but the best times to check them out are during Diwali in the autumn and the commemoration of Krishna’s birthday during the late summer. Lots of crowds, a nice relaxed atmosphere, and plenty of free food.

    As for gurdwaras, the best places to check out (depending on where Blah lives) would be the really large and well-known main gurdwara in Southall, and/or one of the major gurdwaras in Birmingham which Mohinder Singh (also popularly known as “Bhai Sahib”) is involved in running. Mr Singh is also extensively involved in various global charity/humanitarian efforts along with inter-faith “bridge building” initiatives, and I’m sure he’d be happy to chat to Blah about any queries/concerns about Sikhism and Sikh history which he may have. The same applies to the people running the aforementioned gurdwara in Southall.

    One of the main reasons for the existence of gurdwaras in the first place, as established by the Sikh Gurus themselves, is for them to be a peaceful sanctuary for everyone irrespective of their religious affiliation or beliefs; in fact, one of the main ‘Ardas’ prayers at the end of any major events – which the ‘audience’ also chants — involves asking God for the wellbeing of the whole of humanity, not just Sikhs. There are no “mad ranting preachers” screaming “Death to Islam” or “Death to Muslims” – just plenty of soothing music and free communal food for anyone who wishes to have it (again, regardless of their religious background).

    I think that gaining some direct first-hand experience would be the best way for Blah to find out “what really goes on” in these places, rather than relying on inaccurate preconceptions and assumptions or 2nd- and 3rd-hand misinformation.

    Or, if he doesn’t wish to talk to any of the individuals involved in running these gurdwaras, Blah can simply listen to the music, enjoy the free food, and quietly absorb the vibes. Everyone is welcome, without religious distinction or prejudice.

  56. douglas clark — on 17th February, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

    blah,

    Contrary to what you seem to think, this is quite a friendly site. I find your use of the personal as a weapon against other commentators bloody annoying. Viz:

    He himself raised it and it is highly relevant- it explains his psychological desire to put his arms around anyone who is anti “Islamist” even if they are Muslim haters.

    You are certainly not going to change anyone’s mind with that approach, and it means your arguements, such as they are, are likely to get short shrift. It is your own psychology that is suspect, to be honest.

    It also means that folk will be less willing to share their experiences on here, which would be a shame.

    Please, take a chill.

  57. Herman — on 17th February, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

    The idea that no one who criticized the book read it is garbage.

    Fortunately no one is arguing that

  58. douglas clark — on 17th February, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

    blah,

    Do you have a personal story worth telling?

  59. Sid — on 17th February, 2009 at 3:37 pm  

    munir

    The point I am making is that religious people, and Muslims in particular, tend to reach for the visceral and violent reaction to a work that supposedly attacks their religion by formulating their opinions by what their co-religionists think of it rather than enquire into it with the use of their own judgment.

    The majority of Muslims who protested Rushdie’s book had not read it with the notable exception of Sardar and others.

  60. munir — on 17th February, 2009 at 5:00 pm  

    Sid
    “The point I am making is that religious people, and Muslims in particular, tend to reach for the visceral and violent reaction to a work that supposedly attacks their religion by formulating their opinions by what their co-religionists think of it rather than enquire into it with the use of their own judgment. ”

    Why only religious people? Secularists such as nationalists do likewise when their feelings are bruised. Indeed that is precisely what Wlders, not a religious person has done- taken snippets from a book he doesnt understand (unlike SV readers he doesnt even speak the language of the book!!) then presented them to an outraged world calling for the books ban!!

    Your indulgence of Wilders (im not saying you want to ban the Quran) vs strong criticism of Rushdie opponents is curiously different

    And arent you guilty of exactly the same thing? You printed the Lord Ahmed 10,000 claim from the Brussel Journal without any chceking.

    You and many secularists have replaced the priests you accuse the religious of blindly relying on and following, with newspaper journalists you blindly accept!!

    At least the man Rushdie mentioned had the decency to admit his mistake something you didnt- instead you furiously tried to justify it!!

    The majority of Muslims who protested Rushdie’s book had not read it with the notable exception of Sardar and others.

  61. Sid — on 17th February, 2009 at 5:12 pm  

    Your indulgence of Wilders (im not saying you want to ban the Quran) vs strong criticism of Rushdie opponents is curiously different

    Yes, its called Freedom of Speech. How have you mananged to grow up to adulthood here in the West without hearing about it or indeed know what it even means?

    And arent you guilty of exactly the same thing? You printed the Lord Ahmed 10,000 claim from the Brussel Journal without any chceking.

    It has not yet been officially refuted, even if you want to wish it away.

    You and many secularists have replaced the priests you accuse the religious of blindly relying on and following, with newspaper journalists you blindly accept!!

    Unlike priests, I can insult any journalist I like without being questioned about my religious observance or my standing in the “community”.

    At least the man Rushdie mentioned had the decency to admit his mistake something you didnt- instead you furiously tried to justify it!!

    You’re losing me on this one. I tried to furiously justify what?

    The majority of Muslims who protested Rushdie’s book had not read it with the notable exception of Sardar and others.

    Yep, that’s what I just said.

  62. blah — on 17th February, 2009 at 5:50 pm  

    Sid
    “Yes, its called Freedom of Speech. How have you mananged to grow up to adulthood here in the West without hearing about it or indeed know what it even means?”

    He he.Says the man who deletes posts he doesnt like and reports people to their ISPs

    lol

  63. blah — on 17th February, 2009 at 5:55 pm  

    douglas clark

    “Contrary to what you seem to think, this is quite a friendly site. I find your use of the personal as a weapon against other commentators bloody annoying.

    You are certainly not going to change anyone’s mind with that approach”

    I should try Sids approch. Well reasoned , sophisticated and subtle and nuanced.

    Who can forget his comment to another poster: “youre an Islamist cnt”

  64. Sid — on 17th February, 2009 at 5:55 pm  

    Well, websites are accountable to the ISPs who host them for the content of their site. If you post racist material and genocide endorsing opinions on this website, which you have done on numerous occassions, we are liable for them, not you.

    Which is why we either have to delete your comments or report your IP to the ISP. Which one would you rather have us do?

  65. Refresh — on 17th February, 2009 at 6:07 pm  

    Sid, I knew it would get this dirty when you deleted all those comments.

    Now it leaves you with a freehand to accuse at will, with no one to actually able to refer back to those posts. Except you.

    If I recall, you told me you deleted them because I had complained that the diversions from the topic of the posts were undermining the quality of Pickled Politics. There was no mention of the accusations you now make.

  66. Sid — on 17th February, 2009 at 6:13 pm  

    Refresh, your double standards are astounding. You accused me of “diluting” the quality of this website for posting off-topic comments. So when I deleted the off-topic and off-colour comments in an exchange in which many were my own, you now accuse me of underhandedness!

  67. Refresh — on 17th February, 2009 at 6:35 pm  

    Sid, read your own accusation and compare that with your #66.

    And now its my double-standards! You need an assistant.

  68. Mushtaq — on 17th February, 2009 at 6:54 pm  

    de

  69. Mushtaq — on 17th February, 2009 at 6:56 pm  

    My problem with the Quilliam Foundation,, is that they are still beholden to Judaism with all those weird and nasty cultural features. Jews have the money to set up these think tanks, Southasian Muslims have the nous to run them. Southasians ultimately end up aquiescing to their paymasters by becoming their mouthpieces and this means papering over some very disgusting world-views. Look at the Quilliam and you will see that they are populated by Southasians trying to out-do one another in Jew-ness. For some reason it is a weakness to be Anglicised (”coconut”) but it is a virtue to be Judai-sed.

    Why is this? Why do Southasian Muslims regard Jews as their superiors? Is it because we go weak-kneed whenever we hear the guttural tones of spoken Hebrew?
    Surely we should know better by now? In spite of universal human rights abuses of the Israelis and the horror stories we hear year after year there is still a steadfast belief amongst Quilliamites that the sun shines out of Jew behinds.

    Now that the Quilliam Foundation is free of their Jewish financiers, I hope that they can truly come into their own. I was hoping that one of their biggest achievements might be to develop a progressive, vernacular (read: British) school of Islam that is free (in every way) of reactionary Jewish backwardness.

  70. Refresh — on 17th February, 2009 at 6:59 pm  

    Mushtaq,

    go away. I no longer want to hear about these sorts of flights of fancy. Deal with what they say or do.

    If its a question of funding, present the evidence.

    Otherwise give it a rest.

  71. tevya — on 17th February, 2009 at 7:14 pm  

    Sid, great post. Made me laugh.

    The comment above from Mushtaq is racist, no?

    “Beholden to Judaism, Jew-behinds, Jew-ness, Jewish financiers, Jews have the money, reactionary Jewish backwardness”

    - there’s a theme here isn’t there?

  72. douglas clark — on 17th February, 2009 at 8:04 pm  

    Blah @ 63,

    Are you some sort of warrior for Islamists? I’d hope you’d agree that they have co-opted Islam for their own ends. Much as Catholics and Protestants co-opted Christianity for their ends in the Middle Ages.

    It was just as much a load of mince then as it is now.

    Chill, take a pill.

  73. Don — on 17th February, 2009 at 9:33 pm  

    Refresh #70,

    Quite. Go away, Mushtaq.

  74. Anas — on 17th February, 2009 at 10:13 pm  

    yep, fuck off back to the hole u crawled from mushtaq.

  75. Katy Newton — on 17th February, 2009 at 10:17 pm  

    I was hoping that one of their biggest achievements might be to develop a progressive, vernacular (read: British) school of Islam that is free (in every way) of reactionary Jewish backwardness.

    That is hands down the weirdest thing I’ve ever read on this site.

    (I was going to be seriously tasteless, but I edited to maintain my dignity.)

  76. Refresh — on 17th February, 2009 at 10:27 pm  

    Katy, wise.

  77. Joel Shapiro — on 17th February, 2009 at 11:53 pm  

    The best point that people make against Wilder’s film Fitna is that it does not describe most Muslims. This point, however, is both obvious and completely irrelevant. The only question that matters in this debate is: What is the West going to do, and what are the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims going to do about the Muslims that are currently using Islam to promote hatred and violence? Responding that “most Muslims are peaceful” is nothing more than misdirection. If you think these radical Muslims are giving Islam a bad name, don’t criticize Geert Wilders for reporting on it; criticize the militant Islamists themselves. Again, the only important question here is this: What are we going to do about the Muslims that are in fact using Islam to promote hatred and violence against Jews and the West? We cannot have this debate, figure this out, if people reporting on it are banned from our countries.

  78. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 9:10 am  

    Joel Shapiro’s post is pretty typical of the one-sided agenda pushed by ceratin quarters. There is no mentioning of the stopping of killing Muslims (the main point of radicalisation). Shapiro calls on condemantion of anti-Jewish attitudes yet doesnt mention anything of stopping the virulent Islamophobia and hatred against Muslims infecting non-Muslim including Jewish communities (which finds worst expression in Richard Desmonds papers) and what hes going to do about that.

    Im personally not interested in acting against other Muslims merely to strength Israel and Pax America.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.