babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Salmon Rushdie's death sentence renewed by Iran?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Salmon Rushdie's death sentence renewed by Iran?
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 February 2003 05:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just saw a small headline on CTV's 24 hour news channel that said Salmon Rushdie's death sentence was renewed in Iran.

Anyone hear anything about that? Guess they figured they'd wait till he was out of hiding, huh?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 15 February 2003 06:19 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sad but true.

On the up side, the death sentence on Hashem Aghajari has been lifted.

Could there by any chance be a twisted connection (The symbolic fatwa renewal as cover for the court revoking the death sentence of the man actually in custody)?

And Michelle, it truly pains me to say this, but: Shouldn't this be in the Middle East Forum?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 15 February 2003 07:49 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And Michelle, it truly pains me to say this, but: Shouldn't this be in the Middle East Forum?
Topic-specific fora are a good idea if people want to use them. But if people aren't gravitating towards them, people shouldn't be forced. If it's a good idea, people will want to use them (fora respond to free market rules :)

Besides, the Rushdie issue is inextricably linked with Cat Stevens, which is as good an argument as any for not placing it in the middle east forum. :)

And how the heck do you spell this guy's name?
- Salmon: This Thread
- Salman: Linked Express India Article
- Selman: Cat Stevens.com

I don't understand what the problem is. Under their legal system, his behaviour is punishable by death. Muslims are bound to adhere to the laws of whatever country they're in. So the fatwa doesn't authorize hit men to run out and kill Rushdie.


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 February 2003 07:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm an idiot. I can't believe I didn't post this in the Middle East forum.

Moving it there now.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 15 February 2003 10:42 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Muslims are bound to adhere to the laws of whatever country they're in. So the fatwa doesn't authorize hit men to run out and kill Rushdie.

Everyone is bound by such laws. Fanatical Muslims don't appear to feel bound by such civilized constraints (911 being a prime example).


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 February 2003 12:03 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bigoted non-Muslims, meanwhile, don't appear to feel bound by the conventions of civilized discourse, and rarely miss an opportunity for a smear.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 February 2003 12:18 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bigoted suggests ignorance. I think racist is more appropriate.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 February 2003 12:40 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, no sense letting an interesting topic of discussion be sidelined by a troll (and I could wish I hadn't fed him, above, but we're all poor sinners here below).

Anyway. Having read the Express India story, and recalling what I know of the case, I suspect this is really more about internal Iranian politics than anything else. There have been a few demonstrations against the conservative clerics in recent months -- nothing too major, despite some reports that have circulated in the west. Doubtless the conservatives are trying to outflank the reformers and mobilize opinion against them, by invoking the memory of the sainted Khomeini.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 16 February 2003 12:54 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bigoted non-Muslims, meanwhile, don't appear to feel bound by the conventions of civilized discourse, and rarely miss an opportunity for a smear.

So what are you guys saying; that fanatical Muslims do feel bound by international law, or that Muslims did not commit the atrocities on 911?
Or can I interpret your criticism of my post as being racist, bigoted, moronic, asinine, ignorant, uninformed, pro-terrorist, anti-Israeli, what ....? You guys are the ones who use the words of others to smear, and if those words don't appear, you're quite willing to make them up and to incorrectly attribute or misinterpret them.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 16 February 2003 01:04 AM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sinc ethe comment which side-lined this discussion was in response to my post, I'll respond. I hope that we can move on from this digression.

quote:
Everyone is bound by such laws. Fanatical Muslims don't appear to feel bound by such civilized constraints (911 being a prime example).
My comment about Muslims being bound to adhere to deomestic legislation was intended from a religious point of view. I meant that a reasonable, mainstream interpretation of Islam would not authorize such behaviour. I do not think that those in charge of Iran are supporting murders that would violate other nation's domestic laws.

From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 16 February 2003 01:42 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rushdie...
Well, he's gone downhill as a writer anyways...

From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 16 February 2003 02:29 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Muslims are bound to adhere to the laws of whatever country they're in. So the fatwa doesn't authorize hit men to run out and kill Rushdie.

Like right-wing Christians, whose religion expressly forbids them from killing anyone - even doctors who perform abortions.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 16 February 2003 04:32 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Like right-wing Christians, whose religion expressly forbids them from killing anyone -
Does that include Bush? Better send him a memo, Magoo.

From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 16 February 2003 04:42 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was being a little facetious (kooks don't obey laws).
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 16 February 2003 11:26 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My comment about Muslims being bound to adhere to deomestic legislation was intended from a religious point of view. I meant that a reasonable, mainstream interpretation of Islam would not authorize such behaviour.

Quite right. The world would be in much better shape now if the cast of characters would adhere to the tenets of the various religions to which they pretend to adhere, instead of perverting their religious principles so that they can kill and maim in the name of their particular God.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 February 2003 03:14 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry swallow, I hadn't read your second link previously.

quote:
Could there by any chance be a twisted connection (The symbolic fatwa renewal as cover for the court revoking the death sentence of the man actually in custody)?

Not sure what you mean by "cover," but I don't doubt they're connected. Perhaps the Revolutionary Guards, disgruntled by the overturning of the death sentence, took the opportunity to focus "revolutionary" anger at an old familiar target.

Then again, both stories are datelined Feb. 15, with the Revolutionary Guards' statement having come out the day before. So which came first?

Of course, in a way this is a non-story. The Revolutionary Guards, and the Council of Guardians, never accepted Khatami's declaration that the death sentence was no longer valid. As the Express India story says, they've "occasionally" reasserted its validity over the last few years.

Christopher de Bellaigue had an interesting story in the Jan. 16 New York Review of Books, called "The Loneliness of the Supreme Leader." You have to subscribe to read the on-line version, but here's a bit from the end:

quote:
There is no revolution in Iran Most Iranians are sullen but cautious; they were merely observers of the recent protests. The biggest demonstration to have taken place on November 22, the day that [Michael] Ledeen [of National Review claims have a million people took to the streets, and which I attended myself, was attended by around five thousand people....

It is possible that a dramatic escalation of protest, or perhaps the death of a demonstrator, would shake more Iranians from their timidity and torpor. This may be the aim of the ultraconservatives. Both [President] Khatami and [Ayatollah]Khamenei are apprenhensive about growing unrest. They want to get on with their own struggle for power, which they see as central to the future of Iran. The Supreme Leader is being pressured by fanatics. Khatami not only faces strong conservative opposition to his bills in parliament; he is also being outflanked by democrats who draw their inspiration not from his benign reading of Islam but from Western political traditions. The center of Iranian politics -- the ground that is currently occupied by the President and Supreme Leader -- is becoming more and more unstable. If this trend continues, radicals on both sides will have an impact way beyond their relatively small size.


Bellaique never mentions the fatwa against Rushdie, but this power struggle -- which comes out better in the UPI story about Aghajari -- is a big part of the context for this "renewal."

[ 16 February 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca