far...@apollo3.ntt.jp (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes
>You know ... freedom of speech works both ways. If it is alright for Rushdie
>to slander the prophet of Islam in the name of freedom of speech, then it is
>also fine for Ayatollah Khomeini to state that be believes Rushdie deserves
>to die. He exercised his freedom of speech and that should be respected.
>Furthermore, the Iranian government has not killed Rushdie and (as far as
>we know) has not tried to kill him. Therefore it has not committed an illegal
>act.
>I am deeply disappointed by all the people in the west who protect Rushdie's
>right to frredom of speech but somehow do not recognize *the same right*
>for Ayatollah Khomeini.
This is a bit of a tricky question, and I'm really addressing here those
linguists among you who are also familiar with Islamic Law.
The question is: Is a fatwa a speech act? (in the sense defined by John
Searle)
A full response to this question should ideally include a transliteration and
translation of the fatwa pronounced against Rushdie, and a technical statement
explaining why the fatwa is/is not (or does/does not contain) a speech act in
this sense. I think this might help decide the issue of whether the fatwa
goes beyond mere 'freedom of speech' into something else.
--
Disclaimer: All ideas and opinions expressed herein are my own and not likely
to be those of my employer -- but I'm more than delighted to share my ideas
and opinions with anyone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hutchison
School of Information Systems
Faculty of Technology
Kingston University
Kingston upon Thames
Surrey KT1 2EE
UK
Email: chr...@kingston.ac.uk