http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837994.ece


Quote:

Muslim gang firebombs publisher of Allah novel, Martin Rynja David Leppard Scotland Yard's counter-terrorist command yesterday foiled an alleged plot by Islamic extremists to kill the publisher of a forthcoming novel featuring sexual encounters between the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. Early yesterday armed undercover officers arrested three men after a petrol bomb was pushed through the door of the north London home of the book’s publisher. The Metropolitan police said the target of the assassination plot, the Dutch publisher Martin Rynja, had not been injured. The suspected terror gang was being followed by undercover police and the fire was quickly put out after the fire brigade smashed down the front door. The foiled terrorist attack recalled the death threats and uproar 20 years ago following the publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and the worldwide protests that followed the publication in a Danish newspaper in 2005 of cartoons deemed offensive to Islam, in which more than 100 people died. Security officials believe Rynja was targeted for assassination because his firm, Gibson Square, is preparing to publish a romantic novel about Aisha, child bride of the Prophet Muhammad. The Jewel of Medina, by the first-time American author Sherry Jones, describes an imaginary sex scene between the prophet and his 14-year-old wife. It was withdrawn from publication in America last month after its publisher there, Random House, said it feared a violent reaction by “a small radical segment” of Muslims. It said “credible and unrelated sources” had warned that the book could incite violence. Random House reacted after Islamic scholars objected to its contents, saying it treated the wife of the Prophet as a sex object. One of them, Denise Spellberg, of the University of Texas at Austin, described the novel as “soft-core pornography”, referring to a scene in which Muhammad consummates his marriage to Aisha. She called it “a declaration of war” and a “national security issue”. At the time, her warnings were dismissed by the author. “Anyone who reads the book will not be offended,” said Jones. “I wrote the book with the utmost respect for Islam.” However, Jones admitted receiving death threats after the book was withdrawn. It was soon after this that the Met appears to have received a tip-off that the British publisher who had subsequently agreed to print it could be the target of an attack. A Met spokesman said three men had been arrested in “a preplanned intelligence-led operation” at about 2.25am on Saturday. Two of the suspects were arrested in the street outside Rynja’s four-storey townhouse in Lonsdale Square, Islington, while the third was stopped by officers in an armed vehicle near Angel Tube station. They were being questioned yesterday on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, a spokesman said. Rynja, 44, could not be contacted yesterday. He is believed to be under police guard. Yesterday, Natasha Kern, Jones’s agent, said she was shocked to learn of the attack. She said the book had been misinterpreted by its critics and did not contain sex scenes, as had been alleged. “I honestly believe that if people read the book they will see it is not disrespectful of Muhammad, and moderate Muslims will not be offended. I don’t want anyone to risk their lives but we could never imagine that there would be some madmen who would do something like this. I’m so sad about this act of terrorism. Moderate Muslims will suffer because of a few radicals.” Kern said it was too early for her to comment on whether the book should be withdrawn. “That’s up to Martin, and I still need to absorb the fact that he was at risk. I’m just so glad he has not been hurt.” Residents said they saw armed police break down the door of Rynja’s house, helped by firefighters. Francesca Liebowitz, 16, a neighbour, said: “The police couldn’t get the door open so the fire brigade battered it down.” Another neighbour, who declined to be named, said: “I was woken at about 3am and I looked out the window and I saw several unmarked cars with what I now think were police officers in them. These officers came out of the cars and there was huge screaming and shouting. Some of the police officers were carrying sub-machineguns. “I then saw a small fire at the bottom of the door at the house. I heard the police officers shout and scream and try to get neighbours out of the house.” The Jewel of Medina is due to be published next month.

here is a beginning place for the arrogant stiffnecked denying abusive muslims here to at least pretend they are capable of being a normal citizen.

Quote:

It said “credible and unrelated sources” had warned that the book could incite violence.

Quote:

Scotland Yard's counter-terrorist command yesterday foiled an alleged plot by Islamic extremists to kill the publisher of a forthcoming novel featuring sexual encounters between the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride.

Quote:

The foiled terrorist attack recalled the death threats and uproar 20 years ago following the publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and the worldwide protests that followed the publication in a Danish newspaper in 2005 of cartoons deemed offensive to Islam, in which more than 100 people died.

Don't you just love the "religion of peace"?

easel, that style of posting shites me, as I have mentioned to abu.

Why the ferk do you have to copy 'n paste the bloody thaing?

Just precise the story in your own bloody words and then give the link.

Huh?

:-?

It's easier to provide the whole article for discussion rather than rewriting it.

I don't care if you don't like it.

easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

It's easier to provide the whole article for discussion rather than rewriting it. I don't care if you don't like it.

Sure, it's easier (and lazier) for you.

But, for me, it is boring as bat shite.

I want to hear what YOU have to say, not what you so scientifically quote of others.

I'm not just picking on you here.

I aim that criticism at all who do the same.

My antagonism to it goes back to PA where AnimalMother did the same relentlessly.

Copy 'n paste the ideas of others.

Boring.

I felt it is was good edicit to post a whole article with reference.

but, each to their own

You guys are squabbling like a bunch of sunnis and shiites.

Shouldn't that be like a bunch of Catholics and Cathars?

Nah, actually one just tied the other to stakes and burnt them alive, not much squabbling actually occured. Sorry my mistake, bad analogy.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 9:17pm:

I felt it is was good edicit to post a whole article with reference. but, each to their own

Is or was?

Ohh.....look at you, lestat, picking up an error. Good lad.

i is astonished at how good lestat are at curricting the punctuality.

your not bieng nice we all make mistakes to, some people just make more then others but their are always going too be mistakes.

It is pertinent that Abu mentioned catholics, as what we complain about with muslims, that they lend support to terrorism, was similiarly asserted about irish catholics and the IRA.
Abu, of course, denies it, but the same sympathies are there for all to see.
While most catholics did not condone the violence, they did accept it, and would certainly side with the IRA in any political debate, and would very rarely ever dob in known members.

Ironically it was the Omagh bombing which brought the populace to their senses, and they united against the IRA and said, "Enough".

The simple fact is that we just want to see muslims do the same, we don't want to argue over how just their cause may be, for no doubt they have many very real grievances, we just want them to unite and say; "no more violence in our name", and mark the terrorists as pariahs in their community.

When we see that, the suspicion and intolerance can subside.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 12:23pm:

While most catholics did not condone the violence, they did accept it, and would certainly side with the IRA in any political debate, and would very rarely ever dob in known members.

If Catholics were so supportive of the PIRA then Sinn Fein would have been much more successful in the political arena. Most of the Catholics support a free state, doesn't mean they support the IRA. If you dob in known members and get caught you get killed.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 9:09am:

Ohh.....look at you, lestat, picking up an error. Good lad.

He seemed confused, I was just seeking clarification.

I was surprised that you didn't jump onto it...being the grammer nazi that you are. Oh right...sorry, I forgot..he isn't muslim.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 10:26am:

i is astonished at how good lestat are at curricting the punctuality.

So which is it...is or was?

Lestat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 1:43pm:

jordan484 wrote on Oct 1st, 2008 at 9:09am: Ohh.....look at you, lestat, picking up an error. Good lad. He seemed confused, I was just seeking clarification. I was surprised that you didn't jump onto it...being the grammer nazi that you are. Oh right...sorry, I forgot..he isn't muslim.

That's grammAr Lestat, grammAr.

Quote:

The simple fact is that we just want to see muslims do the same, we don't want to argue over how just their cause may be, for no doubt they have many very real grievances, we just want them to unite and say; "no more violence in our name"

What a load of hypocritical tripe.

The Western armies have killed thousands of times more civilians in Iraq and Aghanistan than what were ever supposedly killed in any attack by Muslims on the West.

If anyone should be uniting with a slogan like that, it should be you!! No more cluster bombs in our name, no more helicopter gunships to Israel in our name, no more protecting the Zionists from UN resolutions in our name, no more bombing wedding parties (on the hunch there might be a militant or two attending in our name), no more giving billions of dollars of military aid to brutal dictators who oppress and torture the Muslims in our name, no more clandestine abductions (renditions) in our name, no more 'black facility' gulags in our name, no more Abu Ghraib rape ccentres in our name.... and the list could go on and on and on. You are the ones who have to stand up and have the moral fibre to condemn the endless atrocities your governments have caused against the Muslims. And to admit that it is actually what causes all the hostility and violence.

Quote:

And to admit that it is actually what causes all the hostility and violence.

A muslim believing muslims never contribute to anything bad in the world ever. I don't think one can get any more biased or blind. It must be nice living in your world of delusion and deflection, although I suspect you just could not fathom believing anything else, that would be too hard for you to accept. I was amused by you, now I just pity you.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 4:49pm:

Quote: And to admit that it is actually what causes all the hostility and violence. A westerner believing western nations never contribute to anything bad in the world ever. I don't think one can get any more biased or blind. It must be nice living in your world of delusion and deflection, although I suspect you just could not fathom believing anything else, that would be too hard for you to accept. I was amused by you, now I just pity you.

Pot kettle black. Just swap a few words around and that post applies to you perfectly. I couldn't of described you any better myself.

And you are unable to address his points so you attack him personally. Then again....given that your low level of intelligence and knowledge makes you incapable of even discussing the issues he has raised, I'm not surprised with your respond.

Well done. After quite a while...you've finally come up with a post which at least comes close to the truth...if applied to yourself that is.

Now go on..why don't you pick on my grammar...seems thats all you've got. What a sad excuse for a human being you are.

I bet you live a really lonely life. :)

Not really, I have my family and friends around to keep me company. Not that you mean any by that, just trying to have another dig which fails completely.

I'm not that blind as to deny the fact that non-muslims have their share of blame in the whole scheme of things. Being a muslim does not protect one from fault. But that's what you and apu try to prove. It is biased. It is bigoted. It is blind.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 7:51pm:

Not really, I have my family and friends around to keep me company. Not that you mean any by that, just trying to have another dig which fails completely.

'Not that you man any by that'...tsk tsk tsk, not very good grammar there Jordan. Isn't that a surprise, the grammar nazi aint to crash hot with his grammar. Aint irony a b(tch.


jordan484 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 7:51pm:

I'm not that blind as to deny the fact that non-muslims have their share of blame in the whole scheme of things. Being a muslim does not protect one from fault. But that's what you and apu try to prove. It is biased. It is bigoted. It is blind.

Yeah..which is why you could not refute any of the points he made, in fact you never can, which is why you resort to petty insults and mindless dribble.

And your hardly one to talk about bigotry and blindness. We don't hate people based on their religous beliefs...you do.

Besides we have been critical of muslims plenty of times. We continuously attack the Saudi regime, and the leaders of arab countries....and no doubt that many muslims do things that I disagree with...after all, they are humans. Just most of the examples you and your fellow bigots raise, are really rather amatuerish and steeped in ignorance, hate and bigotry.

Ooops....I made a typo. I forgot to add the "thing" to "anything". Thanks for picking me up on that, and I will try and learn from my mistakes and not make the same mistake twice. Perhaps you could do the same?

I don't hate people based on their religion, I despise people who are blinded BY their religion, those who believe their religion is not responsible for anything, whose religion is never at fault, and whose religion never causes death, destruction and violence. I despise those who ARE bigoted, who are biased and who cannot accept any other alternative than what has been dictated by some odd ball hundreds of years ago. I am happy to explore alternatives, to be involved with freedom of thought, independent thought and progression. I despise those who are not.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 8:42pm:

Ooops....I made a typo. I forgot to add the "thing" to "anything". Thanks for picking me up on that, and I will try and learn from my mistakes and not make the same mistake twice. Perhaps you could do the same? I don't hate people based on their religion, I despise people who are blinded BY their religion, those who believe their religion is not responsible for anything, whose religion is never at fault, and whose religion never causes death, destruction and violence. I despise those who ARE bigoted, who are biased and who cannot accept any other alternative than what has been dictated by some odd ball hundreds of years ago. I am happy to explore alternatives, to be involved with freedom of thought, independent thought and progression. I despise those who are not.

hehe..yep. Type..that must be it.

So you don't hate people based on their religon...you despise. Thanks for clearing that up.

Out of curiouity...who exactly am I bigotted against?

You are a bigot...so I think we'll all take 'your' (see..I'm learning) claims of despising bigots with a grain of salt hey.

Quote:

hehe..yep. Type..that must be it.

Must be.


Quote:

So you don't hate people based on their religon...you despise. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, I said I despise people who are blinded BY their religion. There's a difference.


Quote:

Out of curiouity...who exactly am I bigotted against?

You are bigoted against non-muslims, past, present and future.

Quote:

You are a bigot...so I think we'll all take 'your' (see..I'm learning) claims of despising bigots with a grain of salt hey

.
Believe what you want, do what you want, but that doesn't prove you are right.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 9:00pm:

You are bigoted against non-muslims, past, present and future.

hehe..yeah, thats why nearly all my mates are non-muslims, my wife was not muslim when I married her, and all her family are non-muslims.

Everyone I work with are non-muslims...and hey, we all get along quite well...but hey, lets not let the truth get in the way of your bigotry now..shall we.

Because...in your bigotted view...the fact that I am muslim must mean that I hate all non-muslims.

Well done Jordan...you've just revealed yourself once again as the bigot you are.

back to the topic.


TWENTY years after the publication of the book that almost cost him his life, Salman Rushdie is still glad that he wrote The Satanic Verses.

In the second of a series of interviews with leading cultural figures filmed exclusively for The Times, he tells Clive James that he "wouldn't not have wanted" to be the writer asking the big questions about religion and civilisation posed by the book.

His remarks are uncomfortably pertinent, coming at a time when Muslim extremists have again driven a literary figure into hiding. This time the victim is Martin Rynja, a Dutch-born London publisher who had agreed to release The Jewel of Medina, a controversial novel by Sherry Jones about the Prophet Muhammad's relationship with his nine-year-old bride, Aisha.

Mr Rynja's home in Islington, North London, was firebombed in the early hours on Saturday. Undercover police tipped him off hours earlier and arrested three men from East London.

Rushdie criticised Random House, his own publisher, in August for refusing to publish the book in the US, calling it "censorship by fear."

The interview stretches beyond the fatwa against Rushdie. It ranges from the partition of India to how he played air-guitar Elvis on a squash racket when a child in Bombay.

Rushdie says he is an atheist who finds dead religions "much more attractive" but says he has nothing against true believers until their faith spills over into the public sphere and becomes "my business".

Like all the interviewees in the series (Sir Tom Stoppard was the first and Germaine Greer is among others to appear later on Times Online) Rushdie is filmed chatting on a sofa in James's London flat.

The Times first reviewed The Satanic Verses 20 years ago today. The review carried no hint of the controversy to come but praised the book as "better than Midnight's Children", Rushdie's Booker Prize-winning second novel.

The first sign of serious trouble came four days later when India banned the book after complaints that it was offensive to Muslims and protests began in Muslim communities around the world. In February 1989 Ayatollah Khomeini, then supreme leader of Iran, issued a fatwa calling on all Muslims to murder Rushdie, and the writer went into hiding for the best part of ten years.

Rushdie says: "The question I'm always asking myself is: are we masters or victims? Do we make history or does history make us? Do we shape the world or are we just shaped by it? The question of do we have agency in our lives or whether we are just passive victims of events is, I think, a great question and one that I have always tried to ask. In that sense I wouldn't not have wanted to be the writer that asked it."

During his time in hiding there were explosions at bookshops in London, York and High Wycombe, the book's Japanese translator was stabbed to death, its Italian translator survived a stabbing, its Norwegian publisher narrowly escaped an attempt on his life and 37 people died after a gang set fire to a Turkish hotel where the Turkish translator was staying (he survived).

The writer is more relaxed about his security today but the fatwa cannot be annulled, and when he was knighted last year protests in Pakistan and Malaysia called for his death. No wonder Rushdie prefers "dead religions".



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24430461-2703,00.html

Lestat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 9:07pm:

.the fact that I am muslim must mean that I hate all non-muslims.

No, the fact that what you post here indicates you are bigoted towards all things non-muslim. So is apu, he just has the ability to hide it a little better.