Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Salam Rushdie did write about Islam from the inside.

That didn't help him very much.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 02:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the nexus of Salman Rushdie to our debate is what exactly?
by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 02:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He wasn't satirising or criticising.

But in any case, what I-m trying to argue is that precisely because it's done from the inside it would be worthy of defence even if its intent were to provoke, which as far as I know it wasn't.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 03:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rushdie was deliberately provocative because he was describing his own cultural experience - in a sense his own commentary - on the Qur'an. He knew it was a sensitive subject since most of the world's religions protect their 'Words' very carefully, even if the bulk of their rituals are derived from regulated commentary on the 'Words', not the words themselves.

Like the Second Amendment.

But of course provocation was not his primary motive, if a motive at all. His motive was to explain how he came to be, what he had experienced. His sin was to be W*st*rn.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 03:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
His sin was to be W*st*rn.

Yeah, because he was Indian-born of Kashmiri descent.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 03:32:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Inside!
by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 03:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He was criticising a culture he was part of. That has nothing to do with CH teaching the values of the Republic to the natives.
by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 03:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
careful here. Now you are arguing that muslims are not a part of France.

Anyway, to Islamists it doesn't matters a whit if the critique is from the inside or outside. They are enraged anyway.

Ant you are more and more sliding into a "outside agitator" argument.

by IM on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 03:44:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I am arguing that Charlie Hebdo is not a part of Islam. And I say Islam, not Islamism. These cartoons  offend Muslims, not just Islamists. The latter profit by the outrage, though.
by Katrin on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 06:33:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You should probably prove that sometime.

With polls.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 07:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"He wasn't satirising or criticising."

If that is true that rather strengthens my argument.

I don't think critique, even provocative critique - and some people are provoked by everything don't need to be from the inside - whatever inside is - to be legitimate.

You probably know the term "outside agitator". Has a lot to do with the definition who inside or outside.  

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 03:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series