Not my problem you don't understand the harm principle. I'm not deciding anything, I'm explaining you're not applying the principle correctly and that it was never considered by the ayatollah. Not even avant la lettre.

This whole thing has always been about Western secular supremacism.

Not what I said. And let's not pretend you actually now how Sharia works. You raising straw men every post is tiresome so I'm done here.

Secularism does rock, though. You gotta admit.

I candidly do not know what the primary driver of the silence from Imams in the West is. — Hanover

How about instead of speculating, you ask the only people who can answer your question: the imams in the West?

Eight days into the discussion, have you done that? If not, why this absurd insistence on speculation and ineffective problem solving?

*sigh*

The exact workings of the Sharia law are irrelevant in this. All we need to know is that
1. Sharia law foresees the death penalty for some offenses,
and
2. the ultimate authority in the government of Iran is vested in an autocratic "Supreme Leader" (who has the authority to interpret Sharia law).
Which is exactly what happened. (And why on earth would they issue him a death verdict if not because they thought that what he did was harmful to Islam?)

If you don't like that, sue them. You're a lawyer, you know how that works. Sue Iran, sue the Shias, sue the Muslims altogether. Sue the UN for allowing such countries and religions to exist. Tell them that they're wrong to take offence at a book. Tell them they have no right to feel and think as they do. Tell them they have no right to retaliate. (And while you're at it, sue, for example, the Thai king. They don't take too kindly to those they deem to be desecrating their religion either.) I would love to see you do that. Sue them. Take action. Don't be a coward. Stop this ineffectiveness. Because the posters of this forum are not the right audience for your grievance.

Secularism does rock, though. You gotta admit. — Tate

Really? Encouraging people to be senseless consumerist zombies destroying the planet?

I'm supposed to believe that this is what grandfather fought for?



Really? They fought and died in order to establish ridicule and hostility as civilizational achievements????

@baker

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm supposed to believe that this is what grandfather fought for? — baker

Damn straight.

...

So what does that account by Tabari tell us? For one, that the episode stemmed from Mohammad's desire for acceptance as a prophet among Meccans (who were on the whole rejecting his ministry by then).

The passage immediately before the incident reads:

... he longed in himself for something to come to him from God which would draw him close to them [Meccan pagans]. With his love for his people and his eagerness for them, it would glad en him if some of the hard things he had found in dealing with them could be alleviated. He pondered this in himself, longed for it, and desired it. ...

The verses look like a freudian lapse, acting on a secret desire. For Tabari, this secret longing for acceptance is what the devil acts upon, but it looks like almost the same idea. The Id is the devil.

For two, archangel Gabriel (the vector between God and Mohammad) reproaches the latter for having strayed away from the real, authentic text of the Surat an-Najm. This I interpret as yet another illustration that Mohammad is not the author of the Quran -- God is. The Prophet is not allowed to add to what is revealed to him.

For three, the following revelation is then made:

'We never sent any apostle or prophet before you but that, when he longed, Satan cast into his longing.' [Surat Al-Ĥaj:52]

And thus Mohammad is like any other apostle or prophet, and Satan tempts them all. This is something presented as universal, related to the nature of Satan which is to try and oppose God's will.

This is in my mind a very important point: even the Prophet made mistakes. And some rather grave ones, too, as reported by Tabari. And not because he was bad but precisely because he was an instrument of God, and thus attracted Satan.

Satan (or the Id) who acted upon Mohammad secret longing for social acceptance and made him lapse the so-called satanic verses.

It follows that even the holiest of leaders make mistakes, and can be tempted by Satan.

We can now start to understand what is at play in the historic evolution of Muslim dogma, from one that originally recognizes Mohammad's temptation and lapse, to one that denies it, hides it under a technical name ("the verses of the cranes"), and considers it apocryphal. I think it's about moving from an open society, where all men make mistakes but can correct themselves, to a closed society where some leaders at the top are beyond reproach.

Some posters have said that Islam needs a reformation, and I agree. I wonder if Rushdie's book was not an attempt at reminding readers, including Muslim readers, that Islam was a brilliant, successful civilisation once, precisely when it held the modest, yet surprisingly progressive idea that all men, including the greatest prophet of all, make mistakes, and that rejecting this idea has something to do with what sent Islam into a decline.

I hadn't put it in such a context but that's certainly a fascinating take. I assume you have a background in Islamic or Middle Eastern studies?