Path: cmcl2!cmcl2.nyu.edu!grewals From: grewals@acf2.nyu.edu (Subir Grewal) Newsgroups: alt.religion.islam,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.arabic,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.maghreb,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,alt.culture.saudi Subject: Re: Salman Rushdie's new book comes out Followup-To: alt.religion.islam,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.indian,alt.culture.saudi Date: 10 Sep 1995 05:30:05 GMT Organization: New York University Lines: 50 Message-ID: <42tt4t$iq1@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> References: <42lmtp$t6l@mirv.unsw.edu.au> <42nvrf$t19@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <42qdje$ph4@tin.monsanto.com> <42sflj$50u@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <42t2k4$qdj@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <42tbnr$7i7@newsflash.concordia.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: acf2.nyu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: cmcl2 alt.religion.islam:16271 soc.culture.pakistan:105754 soc.culture.iranian:81440 soc.culture.egyptian:4514 soc.culture.arabic:48328 talk.religion.misc:220935 soc.culture.maghreb:8840 soc.culture.bangladesh:35744 soc.culture.indian:273914 alt.culture.saudi:1197 Follow-ups trimmed. Ilyess Bdira (ilyess@ece.concordia.ca) wrote: : Not so, a fan is not a thinking individual by definition. : "fan" is short for fanatic, as in sports fan, B-movie fan, Bruce lee fan, : Karl Marx fan, Salman Rushdie fan, etc... : got the picture? : The way I see it the Rushdie fiasco is analoguous to the following situation: : Person A slanders Person B, person B threatens him, and bystanders are split : into two groups: fans of A and fans of B. Both are wrong. Actually person A revives an old historical question that may appear from some perspectives to be a derogatory opinion of histoical figure C, person B who has assumed the mantle of "keeper of figure c's tradition" then threatens person A with bodily harm and refuses to compromise after various apologies by A. Person B has not read allegedly blashphemous work, nor has he/she considered the context or A's tendency to play with history evident in earlier writing. The difference is that one has expressed an opinion or articulated an imaginative scenario, and the other threatens violence. There is a world of difference between these two acts. This has actually become a conflict between traditions, one that holds free speech dear and has done very well out of sticking to that principle; and another that has slightly less liberal traditions and has done quite well out of those too or expects to do well with them after Quyamat. The fans you refer to are actually people who have different principles, and like most of us they find it difficult to escape from those that have been thrust upon them. Not so for Rushdie apparently. : Freedom of expression is one thing, but to become a fan of some low-calibre : fiction writer just because he happens to slander a religion you don't care : about and is threatened as a result is not really a thinking process. Take that back, take that back :-) Wonder how much of Rushdie's work you've read? PS. Rushdie page at http://www.nyu.edu/pages/wsn/subir/rushdie.html Take a look. -- Subir Grewal grewals@acf2.nyu.edu Washington Square News on the WWWeb http://www.nyu.edu/pages/wsn/ ------------------------Standard disclaimer applies-------------------------- I never fail to convince an audience that the best thing they could do was to go away.