Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread

[quadraphonics]

Just because you are unaware of what Rushdie has said and done since the publication of that book is not my fault

It is if these events don't exist outside of your imagination.

Started months after the book was published and it had received awards and more.

Interesting how you skip the entries in the Wikipedia source that you just gave, which precede any recognition (such as the banning in India, and receipt of significant numbers of death threats by Rushdie).

And that you premise the whole response on the Whitbread award (an obscure thing that nobody pays the slightest attention to) as somehow emblematic of Western views on Rushdie. I would bet money that you had never heard of the Whitbread award until you went looking on Wikipedia for awards he recieved at early dates. I know I hadn't. And yet, this is supposed to be what set off the whole thing?

Ah yes, and wheres the proof it was because of that novel?

You mean, besides the explicit, public claims of responsibility, complete with motivation? And the lack of any other obvious reason for them?

That being for the newspaper attack, of course. The Berkeley attacks are less cut-and-dried but, really, it seems pretty far-fetched for a coincidence. It's not like those bookstores have been attacked before, or since.

Most of my posts were in respect to that the UK did. You were focusing on the US becuase when I talk about the Western world, it is only natural for you to see if what I am saying rings true for your own country.

No, it is because when you talk about "the Western World," your statements apply to every member of that category. If you want to talk about the UK only, just use the term "the UK." That's what it's for. When you make a point of using a more general category, reasonable people assume that you mean your comments to hold more generally.

More to reality, however: this is a really lame way to try to save face while backing down. A simple "wow, didn't realize that not all of the Western World is like the small island I'm familiar with" would have been a better ploy, than trying to present me as somehow obtuse for not deducing that your comments about "the West" should read as applying only to a tiny corner of it.

 

[quadraphonics]

"International campaign of terror" = handful of people who burned a book and attacked a couple of stores and people.

Handful? Thousands of people showed up to the book burnings.

Suppression is suppression, in whatever form you want to put it.

Okay. I don't have a problem with "suppression" per se, so I'm still not impressed by this point. That Rushdie disliked a play and said so is an instantiation of free speech, not oppression. And that someone crucial to the play's function took this advice seriously enough to decide not to proceed is, again, individual agency in action. That Brian Clark didn't get his play produced isn't oppression. Hell, for a playwrite, it's not even a particularly unexpected outcome.

Believing in free speech doesn't imply that you must support the actual expression of all sentiments, at all times. It does mean that you oppose the use of force to silence people. One can perfectly well be a free speech stalwart, and still work to silence others, as long as one's methods are peaceful (i.e., pointing out that said others have bad ideas, and should be ignored).

Ah yes, "loopist Islamist propaganda sites". Well, maybe you should log on to a newspaper archive database and run a search.

Well, I tried Google, and all I found was loopy propaganda sites.

Beyond that, it's up to you to do your own homework.

I would go to the british Library over here in London, but Im too lazy to get a copy for you.

That you are too lazy to do your own homework, is not my problem.

Or maybe you can read the book "Sacrilege vs Civility" :shrug:

For someone attempting to counter a complaint about loopy Islamist propaganda, a book published by an Islamist foundation, and sold only through Islamist media outlets, is not a very salient rejoinder.

Just an interesting note about this great fighter for the right to freedom of speech, who didnt care about the plight of other writers if helping them didnt bring him any fame

Nobody ever said he wasn't self-interested. But when his freedoms were made the target of oppression, he resisted and, at great personal cost, ultimately prevailed. This is the most we can ask of anyone, and enough to be proud of. One need not embark on a selfless lifelong crusade of defending others, to be laudable. Especially when one's talents are better suited to other pursuits, such as writing novels.

 

[Arsalan]

It is if these events don't exist outside of your imagination.

Go over the various interviews he did regarding the book.

Interesting how you skip the entries in the Wikipedia source that you just gave, which precede any recognition (such as the banning in India, and receipt of significant numbers of death threats by Rushdie).

The banning in India was done in November. The actual protests came after the awards and the critical acclaim.

You mean, besides the explicit, public claims of responsibility, complete with motivation? And the lack of any other obvious reason for them?

You mean the claims that were nowhere to be seen after the events in question, but came after the event became news?

No, it is because when you talk about "the Western World," your statements apply to every member of that category. If you want to talk about the UK only, just use the term "the UK." That's what it's for. When you make a point of using a more general category, reasonable people assume that you mean your comments to hold more generally.

More to reality, however: this is a really lame way to try to save face while backing down. A simple "wow, didn't realize that not all of the Western World is like the small island I'm familiar with" would have been a better ploy, than trying to present me as somehow obtuse for not deducing that your comments about "the West" should read as applying only to a tiny corner of it.

Ah, sorry then, I was still thinking that to you the communities are responsible. Wont happen again. Interesting to see you throw off the collective guilt charge for once.

Handful? Thousands of people showed up to the book burnings.

Is your source the Wiki page which cites Pipes' book? Since we are talking about this whole affair after reading Cole's view, surely you know what Cole thinks about that book as well? Interesting to note that even then it says there was little press coverage. And how many book burnings actually took place?

Okay. I don't have a problem with "suppression" per se, so I'm still not impressed by this point. That Rushdie disliked a play and said so is an instantiation of free speech, not oppression. And that someone crucial to the play's function took this advice seriously enough to decide not to proceed is, again, individual agency in action. That Brian Clark didn't get his play produced isn't oppression. Hell, for a playwrite, it's not even a particularly unexpected outcome.

Its called self-censorship. Clark showed his human side by empathizing with Rushdie. Thats not to say the threat of legal action didnt help.

Well, I tried Google, and all I found was loopy propaganda sites.

Beyond that, it's up to you to do your own homework.

That you are too lazy to do your own homework, is not my problem.

:bugeye:You are the one who wanted the actual article. I can just go to the British Library to look through old newspapers in their entirety, complete with letters in some cases. I suspect you cannot.

For someone attempting to counter a complaint about loopy Islamist propaganda, a book published by an Islamist foundation, and sold only through Islamist media outlets, is not a very salient rejoinder.

Ofcourse, everyone that presents a critique against Rushdie is propagandist.

Nobody ever said he wasn't self-interested. But when his freedoms were made the target of oppression, he resisted and, at great personal cost, ultimately prevailed. This is the most we can ask of anyone, and enough to be proud of. One need not embark on a selfless lifelong crusade of defending others, to be laudable. Especially when one's talents are better suited to other pursuits, such as writing novels.

Great personal cost? Maybe. For the rest, he only gained everything else: money, fame and power to some extent.

 

[quadraphonics]

Go over the various interviews he did regarding the book.

How about you present one - just a single one - and explain how it illustrates that "he knew" "what he was doing" (and, while you are at it, define the contents of this conspiracy, in some straightforward way).

The alternative is not me doing your homework for you, but me discarding your assertion as more unsubstantiated diversion. Even if I was inclined to do your legwork, I still have no idea what categories like "what he was doing" are referring to, when you employ them, and so no way to see if this matches up to the contents of interviews.

Ah, sorry then, I was still thinking that to you the communities are responsible. Wont happen again. Interesting to see you throw off the collective guilt charge for once.

Communities are responsible for collective actions, and actions of their members taken on behalf of the community. It does not imply that any individual trait or action of any member of the community can be ascribed to the community as a whole. Responsibility is not interchangeability.

And, again, a simple "man, I guess I was wrong to assume that Britain is, in all ways, emblematic of every country in the West" would have been both more graceful and more effective.

:bugeye:You are the one who wanted the actual article.

"The?" What I want is simply an article. Or, really, any reliable, unbiased reference.

You're the one who wants me to buy a claim that you can't be bothered to substantiate, and then gets all huffy when that doesn't fly.

I can just go to the British Library to look through old newspapers in their entirety, complete with letters in some cases. I suspect you cannot.

I could, but I'm not going to fly halfway around the world to dig through an newspaper archive in order to double-check your assertions. In the first place, this is your point: if you don't make it, it will simply die. In the second place, isn't this exactly what the Internet was invented for?

Ofcourse, everyone that presents a critique against Rushdie is propagandist.

No, not at all. I've seen plenty of perfectly unremarkable critiques of Rushdie.

But it does appear that all of the people forwarding "critiques" (actually, personal aspersions) along the specific lines that you are pursuing, are indeed propagandists (or in their thrall).

Great personal cost? Maybe.

You spend a decade of your adult life living underground - in fear for your own life and the lives of your family - and we'll see how blase you are then.