From: memon@acsu.buffalo.edu (Naveed Siraj Memon)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: SALMAN RUSHDIE
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:43:20 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Sep11.072914.27434@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bholu@nyx.cs.du.edu (  Bholu) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.024417.5116@sol.cs.wmich.edu>(Naveed
>Sherwani) writes: 
>
>>they should learn to respect other religions. I have shown
>>again and again how islam's basic ideas insults other
>>religions. 
>
>Rejection of other religions/ideologies by another does not 
>amount to insult, and this applies to all religions/ideologies.
>
>>If somebody calls my mother a whore, for all I know he/she
>>may be right! Even if he/she is right, that will never
>>change my relationship with my mother. Since I respect her
>>for what she did for me, and that cannot change. 
>
>That is only a personal opinion. For some other individual 
>the truthfulness of such an allegation could have 
>catastrophic repercussions on the relationship. For example 
>I would find it impossible to ignore an allegation that my 
>closest friend is a drug dealer. Should there be convincing 
>evidence to prove it, I can't see myself having the same 
>ties with him even if he had been an angel to me. If it's a 
>false accusation then it is his right to have his name 
>cleared, the accusation retracted and the accuser penalized.
>(I remember a comedian being awarded substantial damages 
>against a newspaper because an article published in that 
>newspaper had cited him as a boring person.)
>
I wrote a response about someone calling names and shouting
obsenities(sp) at my mother, but I fail to picture Mr Sherwani's
cool.  There had to be something that is offensive enough to 
provoke an angry response. This is just a personal response. 
I can see how Mr Sherwani can maintain his composure while my
kick heads to someones crotch. To quote a lame line out of 
Streisand song to go as the musical score as you picture someone
at the receiving end of my anger, "people, people need people",
to straighten them out if I might add.

>It also depends on the perception that an individual would hold 
>of the nature of the allegation. In the above case had the 
>"allegation" been that my friend was a pakoRay-wala when he 
>actually happened to be a paan-wala, then it would have 
>been inconsequential to me.
>
>>I used word my in the paragraph above, I used the word our
>>in a discussion once and people were willing to kill me. 
>
>I can see that their will failed them miserably :). But on a 
>more serious note, it has become quite fashionable these days 
>to holler "death threat" the moment one gets a nasty e-mail
>(Personally I deplore the use of vile language because one 
>can be very scathing and incisive without spewing out 
>expletives).
>
>>We should look at our relationships, not what people say
>>about them. If Islam is dear to me, I should NOT try to shut
>>up everybody who wants to say something about it. I should
>>focus on what are they saying and does that make any sense.
>
>One cannot both not look at what people are saying and focus 
>on it ;).
>
>>If it does not, I will ignore it or I can write a book which
>>denies the original book, but please dont try to shut them
>>up. That will achieve nothing. 
>
>If what has been said is false it is essential that the lie 
>be exposed and not allowed to be propagated further and the 
>person who came up with it should pay for it. The episode of 
>dehumanizing and demonizing a people (brought about by the 
>propagation of untruths) in Africa, under the Nazi rule, in 
>our very own ex-eastern wing, during the Spanish inquisition,
>in the Americas etc should serve as a constant reminder.
>
>To dish out filth in the garb of art, critique and 
>intellectualism is a mutilation of the very essence of these 
>pursuits, which succeeds in nothing but poisoning minds. It 
>becomes more putrid (and cowardly) when directed at the 
>person of those who are not there to defend themselves. And 
>this is not confined to one particular author and not only 
>vis a vis Islam/Muslims. Muslims themselves have produced 
>highly vitriolic material (mostly as a result of sectarian 
>hatred) and I would never condone those "works" despite the 
>possibility that they had some readable parts. 
>
>The only thing that needs to be eliminated is the lie not 
>the liar. There is no question of "blasphemous or not" in 
>this (Rushdie's) case. If it were only blasphemy that 
>mattered then millions of non-Muslims blaspheme every day 
>(according to Islamic beliefs), as do millions of Muslims 
>(according to others' beliefs).
>
Thank you, for saying it better than I did. I am losing it you
see. :)

>--
>"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and if
>it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"



Naveed[the countdown has begun] Siraj


I just remembered. What happens in the Reginald Denny(sp) case in LA if
the defense proves that Reginald indeed did provoke the attack. And can
I use the same argument if I am arrested for delivering the kick and 
rendering someone nutless? :) The discussion comes back to balls again I
supoose :)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan