Dear Rafeek Monoliths are scary for me at least Best
On 01/07/2008, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hi boby, > unfortunately yes. it was frozen somewhere in history. resurrecting now to > reclaim the spirit of prophet Mohammad's (pbh) great democratic (wonderful > in those days) spirit to be reciprocal in the multicultural societies. it is > the real jihad to reclaim the identity to confront the western/secular > terrorism. > > regards, > ahmed rafeek > > > On 7/1/08, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Is Islam monolithic? >> >> On 01/07/2008, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> hi, >>> being nice is not opposite to polemic. nicenesss may fail to be inclusive >>> of spaces to disagree. members will encourage for common thoughts for nice >>> acceptability. >>> >>> ---------- >>> *If so, why so much disrespect is shown to others' feelings, religion >>> and gods in practice, almost everywhere Islam is in a powerful position? >>> Or is it that there is so much disconnect between preachings and practices >>> in Islam?* >>> it is islam in europe (our discursive context in connection with ziauddin >>> sardar) the 'other'. terrorists and binladen are not against west. they >>> intensify the 'otherness' of islam in the world over. >>> but it is high time no to point the finger only at west, US and cia, but >>> to our own islamic age old ideals and shariat laws to develop the >>> reciprocity in multicultured socieites. it is because of the same reason of >>> age old ideals, islam can't confront (no violence meant) the brutal >>> brahmanic system in india. >>> >>> reagards, >>> ahmed rafeek. >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/1/08, kalyani g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Rafeek, >>>> Isnt it good that the discussions should get nicer. >>>> I agree with aftab, I was also pained. >>>> It was not in good taste. >>>> Free speech may continue >>>> >>>> kalyani >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/1/08, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *Please read the corrected word yellow highlighted.* >>>>> >>>>> *"free speech doesnt mean you be disrespective to YOUR elders" * >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> *the discussion seemed to me getting 'nicer', BUT i apologetically >>>>> admit that my response was insensitive in search of breaking the >>>>> 'niceness'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> aftab, prasad, asma and all others who might get offended, please >>>>>> accept my apology. (in fact i too liked asma's poems) >>>>>> >>>>>> ahmed rafeek >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/1/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> > Hm... very insensitive remark >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 7/1/08, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> > > being romantic in poems on green fields and queens may sound nice, >>>>>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > I am a bit pained by the hidden meaning it conveyed... >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, ahmed rafeek j < >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > hi >>>>>> > > > fortunately islam is not holding the position of dominance in >>>>>> the >>>>>> > > > european context of blasphemy/ secularism. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > no matter what the scripcture preaches transcendental to >>>>>> history. we >>>>>> > > > see how brutally the teachings of islam unfolding in the >>>>>> socieites >>>>>> > > > where it is dominant like pakistan, s a u d i a r a b i a, a f >>>>>> ga >>>>>> > > > nistan and all. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > reciprocal respect in multi-cultured society is not exactly >>>>>> applicable >>>>>> > > > in all the context. we 've to be discriminating to the different >>>>>> > > > groups and communities. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > and romantic imagination of respecting others may include all >>>>>> the >>>>>> > > > 'stupid' senior citizens, but it may miss the respect the >>>>>> differences. >>>>>> > > > differences will include the time differences. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > being romantic in poems on green fields and queens may sound >>>>>> nice, but >>>>>> > > > responsibility is more important in 'actual' world. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > regards >>>>>> > > > ahmed rafeek >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > On 7/1/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > On 7/1/08, Asma Siddiqui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > Dear all, >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > Nice discussion. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > There is an ethical or unethical side of things just as we >>>>>> say >>>>>> > freedom >>>>>> > > > > > of expression or censorship. >>>>>> > > > > > Freedom of expression doesn't mean to be hurtful for a >>>>>> particular >>>>>> > sect/ >>>>>> > > > > > group. >>>>>> > > > > > Islam preaches to respect others' feelings, religion and >>>>>> their gods. >>>>>> > > > > > If the Jyllands Posten had published the cartoons only for >>>>>> the >>>>>> > purpose >>>>>> > > > > > of exercising freedom of expression, it shows how little >>>>>> they know >>>>>> > > > > > about freedom. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > Free speech doesnt mean you be disrespective to your elders. >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > Agreeing with you on all the points except the last underlined >>>>>> one. >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > when you speak of elders, you are speaking of individuals or >>>>>> perhaps >>>>>> > "senior >>>>>> > > > > citizens" and not communities/ sect etc. >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > We love the elders than their contemporaries because we value >>>>>> their >>>>>> > > > > significant contributions and we dont envy or scornful about >>>>>> them as >>>>>> > do >>>>>> > > > > their same age or relatively same age group people. >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > But a sort of irreverence is required that will only enable us >>>>>> > understand >>>>>> > > > > their real worth and have our own way. All people of all ages >>>>>> have to >>>>>> > go >>>>>> > > > > through or face this. >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > What do you say. >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > damodar >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > regards >>>>>> > > > > Asma Siddiqui >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > On Jul 1, 9:07 am, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > May be Gouri Viswanathan's concluding remark addresses your >>>>>> concern >>>>>> > > > > > marginally. >>>>>> > > > > > "To be responsive to unequal power relations in >>>>>> multicultural >>>>>> > societies >>>>>> > > > > and >>>>>> > > > > > yet at the same time practice a form of criticism that would >>>>>> > dispense >>>>>> > > > > > altogether with offense as a measure of belief's >>>>>> existence:that is >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > > > > real >>>>>> > > > > > challenge emerging from Rushdie affair."... >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > read more » >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Afthab Ellath < >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> > > > > wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > > Rushdie's "blasphemy' was made more hurtful to Muslims >>>>>> because of >>>>>> > > > > western >>>>>> > > > > > > intellectuals' reclamation of him as a secular figure, >>>>>> marking off >>>>>> > > > > believing >>>>>> > > > > > > Muslims as nonsecular or nonwestern. >>>>>> > > > > > > * >>>>>> > > > > > > * >>>>>> > > > > > > >> I think it is an important finding >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > Although blasphemy in a religious society provides an >>>>>> index of the >>>>>> > > > > degree >>>>>> > > > > > > to which religious opinion has become monolithic, the >>>>>> existence of >>>>>> > > > > blasphemy >>>>>> > > > > > > laws in a pluralistic society ideally acknowledges the >>>>>> obligation >>>>>> > to >>>>>> > > > > protect >>>>>> > > > > > > difference, on the assumption that without legal recourse >>>>>> the >>>>>> > > > > individuality >>>>>> > > > > > > of community difference cannot be protected against the >>>>>> brutal >>>>>> > affronts >>>>>> > > > > of >>>>>> > > > > > > verbal abuse. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >> How will we see it working in Indian context? What >>>>>> about the >>>>>> > rights >>>>>> > > > > of >>>>>> > > > > > > M.F. Hussein or Baroda students... Is it different from >>>>>> that of >>>>>> > Taslima? >>>>>> > > > > > > Should we treat the blasphemy on Hindu sentiments and that >>>>>> on >>>>>> > Muslims >>>>>> > > > > > > differently? How will we define the framework of blasphemy >>>>>> itself? >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Dileep Raj < >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> Some of the observations made in the last chapter of >>>>>> Gouri >>>>>> > > > > Viswanathan's >>>>>> > > > > > >> *Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity, and Belief* >>>>>> (OUP,1998) >>>>>> > may be >>>>>> > > > > > >> of interest in this discussion. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> She engages David lawton's "Blasphemy" in that chapter. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> 1." … Lawton specifically states at the outset that his >>>>>> interest >>>>>> > in >>>>>> > > > > > >> blasphemy was 're-awakened by the Rushdie affair" and >>>>>> proclaims >>>>>> > that he >>>>>> > > > > does >>>>>> > > > > > >> not "address this book to anyone who supports killing >>>>>> writers", >>>>>> > as if >>>>>> > > > > all >>>>>> > > > > > >> those who took offence with Rushdie's novel also endorsed >>>>>> his >>>>>> > death >>>>>> > > > > penalty. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> 2.If blasphemy as a concept denotes the past of the >>>>>> European >>>>>> > world, it >>>>>> > > > > is >>>>>> > > > > > >> also put to use to mark the present of the non-European >>>>>> world. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> 3.Talal Asad's recent criticism that religion in >>>>>> contemporary >>>>>> > parlance >>>>>> > > > > has >>>>>> > > > > > >> become modernity's alienated self provides a useful >>>>>> framework to >>>>>> > > > > analyse the >>>>>> > > > > > >> distancing of blasphemy from the present, even when >>>>>> blasphemy and >>>>>> > its >>>>>> > > > > > >> persecution exist at the heart of contemporary culture. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> 4. Given the persistence of religiously motivated >>>>>> prosecution >>>>>> > cases in >>>>>> > > > > > >> Anglo-American culture, however sporadic they may be, why >>>>>> do >>>>>> > Salman >>>>>> > > > > Rushdie >>>>>> > > > > > >> and Taslima Nasreen command the kind of rapt media >>>>>> attention they >>>>>> > do, >>>>>> > > > > > >> disproportionate to the attention >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> Given to other blasphemy cases? Why, for instance, is >>>>>> James >>>>>> > Kirkup, the >>>>>> > > > > > >> author of the offending *Gay News *poem, not as familiar >>>>>> a name >>>>>> > as >>>>>> > > > > > >> Rushdie or Nasreen? >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> 5. The circularity of the meanings is evident in the fact >>>>>> that >>>>>> > whereas >>>>>> > > > > > >> blasphemy is often a means of self definition for >>>>>> blasphemers, it >>>>>> > > > > signifies >>>>>> > > > > > >> their lack of cultural belonging in the communities they >>>>>> > challenge, >>>>>> > > > > which >>>>>> > > > > > >> condemn them to irreversible expulsion, and virtually to >>>>>> a state >>>>>> > of >>>>>> > > > > > >> foreignness. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> From internal expressions of dissent, the >>>>>> construction of >>>>>> > blasphemy >>>>>> > > > > > >> as yet again foreign contributes to an endless >>>>>> polarization >>>>>> > between >>>>>> > > > > > >> religions and secularism, community and nation, nation >>>>>> and >>>>>> > > > > international >>>>>> > > > > > >> community. When Salman Rushdie is defended by western >>>>>> literary >>>>>> > figures >>>>>> > > > > and >>>>>> > > > > > >> intellectuals , his dialogue with Islam is turned into a >>>>>> > blasphemy >>>>>> > > > > sponsored >>>>>> > > > > > >> by the non—Islamic world… As Sara Suleri points out, >>>>>> Rushdie's >>>>>> > > > > "blasphemy' >>>>>> > > > > > >> was made more hurtful to Muslims because of western >>>>>> > intellectuals' >>>>>> > > > > > >> reclamation of him as a secular figure, marking off >>>>>> believing >>>>>> > Muslims >>>>>> > > > > as >>>>>> > > > > > >> nonsecular or nonwestern. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> 6.Leonard Levy writes, "when the law punished indecency >>>>>> or bad >>>>>> > taste, >>>>>> > > > > it >>>>>> > > > > > >> became a class weapon of the prosperous against the >>>>>> poor.the >>>>>> > class that >>>>>> > > > > made >>>>>> > > > > > >> and enforced the law had little sympathy for the >>>>>> different taste >>>>>> > of the >>>>>> > > > > > >> class that usually broke law. No one prosecuted Mathew >>>>>> Arnold for >>>>>> > his >>>>>> > > > > > >> sarcasms against the Trinity in his *Literature and >>>>>> Dogma. * >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> 7. If blasphemy is now more a discourse of rights than of >>>>>> creed >>>>>> > or >>>>>> > > > > belief, >>>>>> > > > > > >> it is a reflection of the extent to which culture has >>>>>> usurped the >>>>>> > > > > function >>>>>> > > > > > >> of religion, religious difference itself being >>>>>> vociferously >>>>>> > defended >>>>>> > > > > only >>>>>> > > > > > >> because it signifies *cultural *difference. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> 8.Although blasphemy in a religious society provides an >>>>>> index of >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > > > > > >> degree to which religious opinion has become monolithic, >>>>>> the >>>>>> > existence >>>>>> > > > > of >>>>>> > > > > > >> blasphemy laws in a pluralistic society ideally >>>>>> acknowledges the >>>>>> > > > > obligation >>>>>> > > > > > >> to protect difference, on the assumption that without >>>>>> legal >>>>>> > recourse >>>>>> > > > > the >>>>>> > > > > > >> individuality of community difference cannot be protected >>>>>> against >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > > > > brutal >>>>>> > > > > > >> affronts of verbal abuse. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Afthab Ellath >>>>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> > > > > > >> wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>> *If we see them with the framework of >>>>>> > > > > > >>> modern/western individualism we will end up with >>>>>> advocating >>>>>> > either >>>>>> > > > > > >>> irresponsible chaos or state sponsored censorship* >>>>>> > > > > > >>> ** >>>>>> > > > > > >>> We will be forced to end up in state sponsored >>>>>> censorship, if we >>>>>> > start >>>>>> > > > > > >>> from the fear of "irresponsible chaos"... Western >>>>>> individualism >>>>>> > is not >>>>>> > > > > free >>>>>> > > > > > >>> from this... That is why as Damodar pointed out more >>>>>> number of >>>>>> > books >>>>>> > > > > are >>>>>> > > > > > >>> banned in the west than anywhere else... >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>> But neither Islamic fundamentalism nor indian bhrahmnism >>>>>> can >>>>>> > make >>>>>> > > > > > >>> a different claim... >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>> Freedom of expression is the freedom to express the >>>>>> > difference... But >>>>>> > > > > in >>>>>> > > > > > >>> the west it is the freedom to express the "right" and to >>>>>> offend >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > > > > > >>> "other"... >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM, ahmed rafeek j >>>>>> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> > > > > > >>> wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> hi >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> these subtle and overlapping categories of private and >>>>>> public >>>>>> > are >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> characteristics of the multi-cultured societies and >>>>>> hence >>>>>> > progressive >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> to be enriched. but, if we see them with the framework >>>>>> of >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> modern/western individualism we will end up with >>>>>> advocating >>>>>> > either >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> irresponsible chaos or state sponsored censorship. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> space for 'differences' is critically important in the >>>>>> new >>>>>> > world. >>>>>> > > > > but, >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> if you apply the yardstick of absolute rights of >>>>>> individuals, >>>>>> > which >>>>>> > > > > is >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> the product of western modernism and was excluding all >>>>>> the >>>>>> > 'other' >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> groups and communities, you will end up unintentionally >>>>>> > supporting >>>>>> > > > > the >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> dominance of white and brahminic elites in society, >>>>>> arts and >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> administration. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> artisitic expressions are heavily capital embedded. >>>>>> creativity >>>>>> > is no >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> more a serene issue of individual freedom. rushdie will >>>>>> think >>>>>> > about >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> the publisher and market before he starts writing. mf >>>>>> hussain >>>>>> > will >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> visualize the walls of emerging indian middle class >>>>>> homes where >>>>>> > his >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> pictures will hang on. in fact it is good, as a noted >>>>>> thinker >>>>>> > said >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> idea is money. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> regars, >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> ahmed rafeek >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> On 6/28/08, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > Then individual' relgious expressions are private and >>>>>> > artistci >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> expression >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > are public. How will you account for the private >>>>>> feelings, >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> violatons of >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > one's inner experiences. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > Can such clean categorisations of religeous and >>>>>> artistic >>>>>> > > > > expressions >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> as >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > private and public possible? I am not talking about >>>>>> the >>>>>> > public >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> mobilization >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > of goons or fascists.... Then how will describe the >>>>>> public >>>>>> > > > > religeous >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > experienecs like festivals and celebrations... Even >>>>>> the >>>>>> > perfomance >>>>>> > > > > of >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > rituals in public... and is the artistic expression >>>>>> of >>>>>> > Taslima >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> entirely >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > public? >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > I think the expressions questioning the expressions >>>>>> of >>>>>> > offence (not >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> the >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > expression of freedom) is also form the freedom of >>>>>> > expression... If >>>>>> > > > > we >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> ask >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > to regulate such expressions, it will be easy to end >>>>>> up in >>>>>> > some >>>>>> > > > > kind >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> of >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > cencerships... >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Abdulkareem U K >>>>>> > <abdulkareem.uk@ >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> gmail.com> >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > I definitely don't want to advocate freedom for >>>>>> someone who >>>>>> > use >>>>>> > > > > it >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> to mock >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > others, or oppress others, or to prove their power. >>>>>> Jayllands >>>>>> > > > > Posten >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > editor's argument that they published the cartoons to >>>>>> make >>>>>> > muslims >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > understand they should be prepared to face mockery >>>>>> was >>>>>> > certainly a >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> show of >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > power. But the powerfull is always free to do >>>>>> anything they >>>>>> > want. >>>>>> > > > > They >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> may >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > use the freedom of expression sometime, or some other >>>>>> cover >>>>>> > next >>>>>> > > > > time. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> They >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > would claim they felt responsible to do that. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > But an artist's right to express ideas and use of >>>>>> > techniques need >>>>>> > > > > to >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> be >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > protected. Criticisms on religious beliefs and other >>>>>> power >>>>>> > > > > structures >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> cannot >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > be exempted from that. It may hurt individuals, not >>>>>> because >>>>>> > they >>>>>> > > > > were >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > targeted. Many of the religious believes are >>>>>> systematically >>>>>> > fed in, >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> mostly >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > with certain interests. If someone finds a problem >>>>>> there, and >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> expresses it >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > in some form, I don't think the believers are the >>>>>> targets, >>>>>> > but the >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> system >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > that make them believe. Often we find it is the >>>>>> powers that >>>>>> > drive >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> system, >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > drive mobilisations against such expressions. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > With freedom of expression being such a >>>>>> double-edged sword, >>>>>> > if we >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> are to >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > determine whether a particular expression deserve >>>>>> freedom, it >>>>>> > can >>>>>> > > > > only >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> be >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > done after having it expressed, other attempts would >>>>>> amount >>>>>> > to some >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> form of >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > censorship - which is more volnerable to misuse than >>>>>> freedom >>>>>> > of >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> expression >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > itself. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > I agree, not all works are relevent everywhere. >>>>>> However, >>>>>> > can we >>>>>> > > > > say >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> art, >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > literature, voices, and thoughts expressed at some >>>>>> place in >>>>>> > some >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> context >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > have nothing to do beyond the context and boundaries? >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > Regards >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > Abdulkareem- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > - Show quoted text - >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> Bobby Kunhu > > > -- Bobby Kunhu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
