Violence In Maalouf's Fight Club

1089 Words5 Pages
In Maalouf’s Samarkand, violence culminated public life, whereby the public condemned liberal thought. Violence served to prevent people from against the socially accepted way of life. The authority, including the public condemned Omar Al Khayyam, and subsequent labeled him an infidel because, in his Rubaiyat ridiculed Islamic faith. In Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk explores the theme of violence through chaotic events. One of these events is fighting. Men like Taylor, and The men who take part in fight club, they believed fighting brought them together as men. Although fighting is a violent activity, it brought men together. In both contexts, violence served as a means of achieving social order. The two books present violence in different contexts. In Samarkand violence plays a crucial role in the development of politics, social constructions, knowledge and beliefs, most of which erode with time (Grosz 8). In Samarkand, “All violence is born of fear” (20). Violence points to a time when Muslim countries used violence to induce fear, so that they can achieve social control. The Qamartians, Imamis and other 72 sects, all who purported to follow Muslim teachings, threatened the faith of Samarkand. In Samarkand, violence is a means of protecting the people from perceived bad teachings from the 72 sects. This explains the condemnation Omar Al Khayyam received because of trying to bring about new teachings of Islam in Samarkand. In Fight Club, fighting is an

More about Violence In Maalouf's Fight Club

Open Document