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 Date: 12 Sep 1995 10:30:17 GMT Organization: New York University Lines: 74 Message-ID: <433nfp$ab5@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> References: <42lmtp$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$7i7@newsflash.concordia.ca> <431hh7$b3h@tin.monsanto.com> <431th5$iti@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4326ho$jbo@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com> <432sqf$o83@nntp.Stanford.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: acf2.nyu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: cmcl2 alt.religion.islam:16441 soc.culture.pakistan:106090 soc.culture.iranian:81628 soc.culture.egyptian:4564 soc.culture.arabic:48402 talk.religion.misc:221234 soc.culture.maghreb:8903 soc.culture.bangladesh:35891 soc.culture.indian:274365 alt.culture.saudi:1249 Followups trimmed. Rajesh Kamath (rkamath@james.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : Khers (khers@manjil.com) wrote: : : rkamath@james.Stanford.EDU (Rajesh Kamath) wrote: : : > : : >Why should Rushdie be willing to sacrifice his life in a battle that : : >he didn't even choose to fight? He probably wrote Satanic Verses as : : >just a book. A provocative book, no doubt, but certainly not written : : >with the object of initiating a battle over freedom of speech. Why, : : >then, should he be willing to sacrifice his life for it? : : Because according to religious thinking, one must be willing : : to die for one's beliefs. : The point is: Its not clear that Rushdie has some belief to state. : Remember, he didn't write the Satanic Verses as a challenge saying: : Here are my beliefs, do what you want. He just wrote it. He may : not even feel too strongly about freedom of speech etc. Why should : he fight a battle which is not of his own making? Why should he : be called a coward for refusing to do so? Actually Russhdie does believe very strongly in freedom of speech. If you read Midnight's Children carefully you'll see why. Haroun and the sea of stories is a brilliant fairy-tale about restrictive governments. The thing is, I see no reason for Rushdie to present himself for judgement before a system of law that he does not ascribe to (Russhdie is a self-described atheist, the brief re-conversion to Islam was a desperate attempt to have the fatwa revoked when he found that his wife couldn't bear it any more and was going to leave him because she couldn't take the pressure), and which seems to him patently unjust and skewed. Rushdie is not, repeat not, Iranian. At most he falls under Indian urisdiction due to his birth in India, and no court in India would ever incarcerate Salman Rushdie or threaten violence against him for this supposed "crime" (if they did all right thinking citizens would press for it to be frwarded to the SC, and our SSC is quite reasonable thank you). Since the decleration of the fatwa and Satanic Verses being banned in India, Rushdie has come out again and again to speak out against oppression of opinion anywhere in the world. Contrary to the opinion of some, Rushdie is fighting, thankfully he is not using the sort of draconian tools Khomeini thought it wise to use. We must respect Rushdie if only because he has refused to incite any violence against the former Ayatollah or the state of Iran. It should be made clear to you that being in the center of the lime-light, and having your name recognised by people who haven't even read your books is hardly a priority for a writer like Rushdie. In fact the loss of his freeedom is most lamentable and perhaps the worst punishment he could ever have received (it's not punishment but some sort of fanatical vengeance). Rushdie has become a martyr to the cause of freedom, that's a lot more than one can say for many others. Incidentally I do not think "the supreme sacrifice" is something many people should undertake. More often than not they are bpawns in a game with bigger interests than what they hold dear. : How many of these officials have become "shaheed" in the cause : of Islam? I forget who said this but it goes roughly like this "the object of war is not to die courageously for your country, but to make the other fellow die for his". Apt, but Rushdie has not chosen to fight a war, unlike some misguided so-called Muslims who claim that the only significant contribution Mohammed made to their lives is the introduction of the concept of jihad. -- Subir Grewal grewals@acf2.nyu.edu Washington Square News on the WWWeb http://www.nyu.edu/pages/wsn/ ------------------------Standard disclaimer applies-------------------------- "By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote. In fact, it is as difficult to appropriate the thoughts of others as it is to invent. (R. Emerson)" -- Quoted from a fortune cookie program (whose author claims, "Actually, stealing IS easier.") [to which I reply, "You think it's easy for me to misconstrue all these misquotations?!?"]