Discussion Questions on Rushdie's  Satanic Verses and Talal Asad's
Polemics.
 

1) Talal Asad at one point argues  that "political supremacy works
effectively through institutionalized difference" (264) by maintaining
certain minority groups in a subordinate position so that they must
request protection and rights rather than have equal access to
constructing the political culture (259). He also suggests that the
extreme reaction of British society to the call for banning Rushdie's
book was a result not of fear of social unrest or revolutionary
potential but rather fear of revolutionizing the notion of liberal
multiculturalism. What is the difference between the difference that
threatens the state and that which it seeks to maintain. Considering
this, which option do we believe that Rushdie believes in?

*Is it possible ( Asad does not discuss)  that this threat is augmented
by the new international lines drawn by the end of the Cold War and the
success of the Iranian Revolution?

2) What can we make of Rushdie's constant shifting in the
interpretations of his own work: beginning with downplaying the
commentary on  Islam and suggesting the work is only about processes of
identity, to defending his own right to Satire? ( 274)

3) Many defenders of Rushdie see in his work an "uncompromising
insistence on liberal truth"(276): the subjective and personal
overriding the institutional, ideological or collective. Do Rushdie's
representations of the doubter as Shaitan who ends triumphant and of
Gibreel the angel who is suicidal really represent a liberal or neutral
truth? (Does the state really represent a neutral interest-less entity
where all are equal?)

4) Consider Bikhu Parekh's response to the Satanic Verses ( 279-280).
What are the ramifications of  the " the categorization of religiously
based identity as a condition of individual or collective pathology." (
280). Thinking back to Beyer, what should be the role of religion in a
globalizing world where immigrant communities are growing and increasing
and more often than not face tremendous discrimination?

5) Comparing the discussion on Tuesday to the comments posed by Asad,
what can we say about the true ramifications of the Rushdie affair? (
Does Asad's more theoretical analysis have real/felt effects,
consequences?)