Im talking about India. They did in India. An yes, he has probably been back. Whats that say about a country with a large Muslim population which he attacked?
Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread
- Thread starter kks
- Start date
Im talking about India. They did in India. An yes, he has probably been back. Whats that say about a country with a large Muslim population which he attacked?
Thinly veiled fabrications appear to be your forte, too, for the record.
He visited the largest and most important cities in the center of Thackeray influence, appearing at bookstores etc.SAM said:
The only serious threats he faced were from Muslims.
And I am still, as you were as well, talking about the international community, and the special reaction of Muslims such as yourself, then and now, to Rushdie's novels.arsalan said:
The confusion of stories and lies, for example; the tolerance of violence and threat against authors of fictional narratives; the apparent inability to handle, intellectually, such things as novels; the apparent expectation that political force and coercion should be employed in support of your judgments regarding Rushdie's novels; the description of Rushdie's writings as attacks on people and betrayals of communities, with the expected violent reaction therefore Rushdie's own doing and a normal event of no particular implication regarding those people and communities - contrast your presentation of Rushdie's writings with Juan Cole's.
You clearly know very little about the Shiv Sena.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/02/w...itter-epilogue.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
It was only after Bal Thackeray said he had no problem with it that Salman Rushdie came to India.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/feb/06thac.htm
As you can see, he had his own reasons for that.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/02/w...itter-epilogue.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
It was only after Bal Thackeray said he had no problem with it that Salman Rushdie came to India.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/feb/06thac.htm
As you can see, he had his own reasons for that.
I know that the general Hindu reaction to Rushdie differed - and differs - in important ways from the general Muslim one.SAM said:
Which was my point. The general Muslim reaction to Rushdie's novels was, and remains, unique.
And so you were wrong when you bet your ass - or somebody's - that Rushdie visited nowhere within his reach.SAM said:
Because he did not target the "general Hindus"
Unlike say, Deepa Mehta did in the movie Fire by naming the two sister-in-laws [who turn to each other for sexual gratification] Sita and Radha, the names of the consorts of Ram and Krishna.
That one resulted in cinema theatres being burned down and theatre goers being assaulted. The movie was pulled from all theatres in Bombay.
Similarly, for Water, the same director was forced to shoot elsewhere because the Hindus refused her permission to make the movie in Varanasi and the movie itself was banned from public showings
Deepa Mehta's 'Water' Goes From Being Banned to Oscar Nomination
He didn't. He went to Delhi.
hello folks
i hope yr weekends are going well
this beef with Mr rushdie is just so ime wasting , obviously the guy is a self publicist (IMO) so i wish the poeple who were offended by his book just shut up!! to be honest its his business and problem what he writes and what he says...
why waste our breathe!!
mind u he does/has hang out with some pretty hot birds, fuck knows how, he doesnt seemlike Gods Gift or anything!!
so girls is the rusher man hot or not!!!??????
cheers zak
i hope yr weekends are going well
this beef with Mr rushdie is just so ime wasting , obviously the guy is a self publicist (IMO) so i wish the poeple who were offended by his book just shut up!! to be honest its his business and problem what he writes and what he says...
why waste our breathe!!
mind u he does/has hang out with some pretty hot birds, fuck knows how, he doesnt seemlike Gods Gift or anything!!
so girls is the rusher man hot or not!!!??????
cheers zak
And Mumbai, Shiv Sena's old base. http://indianmuslims.in/rabble-rousers-at-work-ahead-of-rushdies-mumbai-visit/SAM said:
One way to spot an intellectual crippling in oneself is to notice a pattern in simple factual errors of perception and memory - if they always break the same way, you've got a problem.
Perceptions of being "targeted" by novels vary by religion, true. But that was my pointSAM said:
- and it holds for your other examples as well, in which worldwide communities of Hindus did not murder translators, and Hindu clerics did not put out contracts on people's lives.
Last edited:
What do you think?
thank you Sam for your input
u c thats what i am taalking about...
how the fuck did he pull a bird let alone some nthing hot
Novelist's girlfriends are quite often inexplicably hot - Joseph Heller once suggested that someone should look into that. As he noted, novelists themselves are no great shakes for looks, money, or power.zak said:
As Heller also pointed out, that was true of even failed, impoverished novelists. And Rushdie is successful and rich, by the standards of the novel-writing business.
In 2008, after Thackeray has/had not only lost power in Bombay but also the support of the same people who hacked Muslims in the Bombay riots for him.
Or perhaps, one simply knows more due to living in the city and observing first hand the various riots initiated by the same.
Probably because they did not then have NRI Hindus pouring dollars into their funds and were restricted to merely hacking people locally. Now it might be a different story.
Here is a BJP candidate campaigning for the current elections
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jCRSzD01xI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jCRSzD01xI
To the OP - Each culture has their own set of values. There is always more than one point of view. That's why I believe that there's no right or wrong. Purely subjective.
And "the Hindu world" has yet to present a threat to him - or anyone connected with books, movies, etc.SAM said:
Nor has "the Christian world", "the Zoroastrian world", etc.
"The Scientology world" is the only religious world I can think of that behaves like that these days. Except "the Muslim world", of course. And if one were to ask the question "what is wrong with Scientology", it would be a matter of legitimate discussion, with its threats of violence and (ostensibly) uncomprehending overreactions to novels accepted as evidence of problems.
Not dismissed as the expected reactions of insulted people, taking personally what they have not read or do not understand.
That must be the intellectual crippling you refer to. I see what you mean now. Its when you see the actions of individual Muslims as reflective all of them, but occupation of entire countries by hundreds of thousands of troops to protect a "way of life" is invisible.
The Hindu world itself is divided along caste lines but there is plenty to choose from if the media were to focus on their atrocities.
No, because they simply bomb the people they do not like and when they ban anyone for ideological reasons, there is very little argument over it. Like when the British refused a certification for a Pakistani film on Rushdie or when Rushdie took his houseman to court for writing lies about him. But if 30 Muslims protest about Rushdie in Bombay, its an international incident which represents all Muslims worldwide.
.
Kinda like the decimation of Iraq over non-existent WMDs or that of Afghanistan over lack of evidence connecting Osama to 9/11. Of course, that doesn't count as trampling on freedom of expression, because other people's freedoms have never been a matter of concern. After all isn't that why Muslims hate the west? For their freedoms?
Which one? The Parsis and the Iranians in India will not even marry each other.
Last edited: