Well,has he gone through a court of law yet? — Adamski
Finally,I waiting for you to engage fully with my other post rather than focusing on ONE extremist person.
Is it guilt by identity you are insinuating? — Adamski
The first use of the expression ["satanic verses"] in English is attributed to Sir William Muir in 1858.
His original book "A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira" was initially published 1861 in four volumes. The book received attention in both literary and missionary circles, and provoked responses ranging from appreciation to criticism. ... A significant rebuttal to Muir's book was written Syed Ahmed Khan in 1870, called A Series of Essays on the Life of Mohammed, and Subjects Subsidiary Thereto.[9] Khan praised Muir's writing talent and familiarity with Oriental literature, but ... accused Muir of misrepresenting the facts and writing with animus. ... Later reviews of the work have also been mixed, with many scholars describing Muir's work as polemical. — Wikipedia
fine piece of evasion and mealy mouthed misinformation hanover. — Adamski
How would you know how the Muslim community distances itself from extremists? How many Muslims do you engage with offline regularly? — Adamski
You seem to think you can criticise purely from your knowledge of American media and Google without having any local knowledge — Adamski
nd this too is an accusation one reads on social media: Rushdie did this to seel books. Back to what my door keeper told me: don't write a novel, a work of fancy about Mohammad, in part because that would be disrespectful but also because it would be lowly commercial, hence consumerist, capitalist, sensational, etc. Not serious. Not good. — Olivier5
The title of Rushdie's uses a phrase borrowed from a western characterisation of an incident in the life of Mohammad, a phased not used in Islam. Probably because the reference to the cranes is less embarrassing, less sensational, and more technical.
The title "satanic verses" may thus be seen as tendentious, as not using the due respectful tone and vocabulary one should use while speaking of the Prophet. And it is also western and therefore ideologically suspect from a modern Muslim perspective. — Olivier5
I've removed the completely irrelevant personal attacks, because this discussion has been civil for a good four pages and I don't want it to degenerate like the Ukraine discussion did. — Jamal
You reject people's lived experience and think some academic can top what real Muslims actually feel? — Adamski
As I said before not everything is online or reported.
It's like you want reams of online documents to disprove the guilt you've already imputed.
You are aware that many imams give a speech every Friday and that this is purely oral,it doesn't go online? — Adamski
your ignorance of this culture you feel fear and resort to suspicion and media propoganda. — Adamski
Tell why do many western people on the ground live,work,befriend and marry Muslims,even shia ones!
Nor are they afraid of the average Muslim. — Adamski
Your attitude is primitive just like a person who wants academic evidence that non white people are not dangerous savages.
Own your ignorance hanover. — Adamski
Since I can't every begin with most basic factual notions with you, it's hard to make progress. You've presented arguments the attacker doesn't even make for himself (that he's not even a Shia — Hanover
Wait a minute. You don't know the attacker's identity and motives better than anyone else. My guesses about the extent to which he's a faithful disciple of Ayatollah Khomeini as opposed to a troubled person are as good as yours.
You appear to be bent on taking anything anyone says as a defense of the attack or a vindication of Iran even after they've already condemned it. You've done that to at least two posters so far — Tate
What was being asserted was that the attacker was this lone, crazy, knife wielding attacker suffering purely from mental illness. That, based upon the facts, is burying one's head in the sand. He acted pursuant to an ideology advanced by a religious leader held in much esteem by a large number of people. — Hanover
What I do take it to be is simply a misstatement of the facts so as to remove this question entirely from the OP by saying this has nothing to do with Rushdie's work and the Muslim animosity it engendered, but to instead suggest we're just dealing a single nut job. — Hanover
Those just aren't the facts and it creates the false illusion that this has nothing to do with Islam, Shiahs, the Ayatollah, or Rushdie. It most certainly did, and that is the point of this OP. — Hanover
Well, you're so versed on the facts, what does the event and its fallout tell us about mainstream Islam? — Tate
stated this the best I could, which is that my best guess is that there is not the impetus upon public condemnation within that community — Hanover
My suspicion is that it arises over this free speech question generally and what social expectations there are in terms of what is acceptable speech — Hanover
These are just my thoughts after reading, but I could be wrong. That's why I'm having the conversation. — Hanover
Sure, that happens. But the point is you don't risk death or maiming by strangers all around the world for decades. Nor will anyone throw acid in your face for being a woman daring to gain an education. For my money you can't compare these expressions of 'authority'. — Tom Storm
And even if they were exactly the same, this would amount to a tu quoque fallacy.
Artists in the West can generally be hatefully critical towards power elites and government and religions and not face these problems.
Whatever you may have seen does not necessarily warrant calling the quote 'politically correct' as a kind of pejorative. That's a Fox News style comment. But you are correct that some people are hypocrites. Sometimes you can tell if they are or not by how much their public comments have cost them.
The prophet comes across as a great man, and there is no contempt for Islam in that book whatsoever.
— Olivier5
You don't get to decide that.
— baker
I do, at least for myself. If you disagree, you are welcome to pinpoint what you personally see as the contemptuous parts in Rushdie's book. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.