That's true what it says, but, as noted in other threads, there's no evidence of any actual stonings or biblically mandated death penalties in the past 2,000 + years. — Hanover

:chin: Really? Historical events like the Inquisition immediately come to mind.

I'm just glad he survived.

Hanover was talking about Jews stoning heretics. If I am not mistaken, the Inquisition was run by Dominicans, a Catholic order not usually confused with Jews. For further information, see Python, Monte: The Spanish Inquisition

I like the Monty Python's caricature of Spanish inquisition, but truste me when I say they weren't that bad as the "history" books say.
Plot twist: Germany burnt down more "witches" and heretics than the Spanish inquisition. I never understood why we are the only ones who looks like as the bad character inside of history.

Note that I do not pretend to defend my ancestors but only to highlight that it wasn't as excessive as the people tend to think!

Really? Historical events like the Inquisition immediately come to mind. — praxis

They had a special court called "the court of inquisition in Madrid" they rarely set the people in fire... if you check the data (not influenced by black legend) you would see that they were a few who experienced that drama. Again, as I said to Bitter Crank, non Catholic countries as Germany or Austria burnt down more witches or heretics than the Spanish inquisition...

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini never read Salman Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Verses,” his son Ahmed told me in Tehran, in the early nineteen-nineties.

Rare are the Muslims who ever read the Satanic Verses. That includes Rushdie's attacker, Hadi Matar. They just believe what some other cretin said about it. That's a big part of the problem. We got guys ready to kill for hearsay, for a fucking rumor...

I guess some people beg to be manipulated.

To my taste, I don't see enough in the press in defence of the book itself. It is a great piece of literature and I hope that people read it, and read it for a good reason, ie their reading pleasure. Haters looking for a dress-down of Mohammad will be disappointed. The prophet comes across as a great man, and there is no contempt for Islam in that book whatsoever.

So it's really sad to hear or read something like this:

. I spoke to two Sunni collogues of mine. Their response about what happened to Rushdie was - "You mock Islam, what do you expect? He's lucky to still be alive." Were they against the attack? "I wound't do it myself, but I understand the anger." — Tom Storm

I don't doubt what Tom says -- this is exactly the kind of feedback you'd get from any serious/involved believer in Islam. And yet there no mocking in that book.



Meanwhile:

Police are investigating a threat against JK Rowling that was made after she posted her reaction on social media to the attack on Salman Rushdie.

Rowling tweeted on Friday: “Horrifying news. Feeling very sick right now. Let him be OK.”

A Twitter user under the name Meer Asif Asiz replied: “Don’t worry you are next.”

I've been following this informative and thought-provoking thread. Thanks @Hanover
I had wondered when anyone would start talking about the attack and from what angle.
The focus is exceptional.

But back to the theological question, anyone find sources of mainstream. Imam condemnation of the attack or fatwa? — Hanover

I've been looking too and glad to have learned more from other posters.
Apologies if I've departed some from original OP questions.

I bolded bits of interest, where any questioning at all is forbidden and can result in death via fatwah.

Anything departing from such hagiography is blasphemous, even if showing Mohammad in a positive light (as Rushdie does in the Satanic Verses), even if historically accurate.

In particular, the Quran is untouchable.It is supposed to be the direct writings of God. Yet Rushdie shows a conflictual, painful revelation process, where Mohammad goes through much physical and mental suffering and struggle, and where the politics of the city get to impact the holy book, albeit in a transient manner. It implies that the Quran has a human touch, even if divinely inspired, and thus introduces an element of doubt. — Olivier5

Rare are the Muslims who ever read the Satanic Verses. That includes Rushdie's attacker, Hadi Matar. They just believe what some other cretin said about it. That's a big part of the problem. We got guys ready to kill for hearsay, for a fucking rumor... — Olivier5

That point was covered in a recent Guardian article.
Basically, it doesn't matter the contents, it's the principle...the mere fact of criticism.
Emotional manipulation. Not just a rumour but brain-washing.

Another excellent piece mentioned our 'internalisation' of the fatwah with links to other articles.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/13/we-internalised-the-fatwa-against-salman-rushdie-this-horrific-attack-is-what-follows

A bit like how Rushdie just had to get on with life...accepting of his potential fate.
It's a pity that there has been no clear understanding re the lifting of the fatwah.
Channel 4 news not long after the attack explored this:
Krishnan Guru-Murthy
We spoke to Indian MP and author Shashi Tharoor about the attack of Salman Rushdie.
https://www.channel4.com/news/salman-rushdie-he-felt-after-nine-years-of-living-in-hiding-it-was-wonderful-to-be-normal-again

I don't see enough in the press in defence of the book itself. It is a great piece of literature and I hope that people read it, and read it for a good reason, ie their reading pleasure. Haters looking for a dress-down of Mohammad will be disappointed. The prophet comes across as a great man, and there is no contempt for Islam in that book whatsoever. — Olivier5

I read that the sales have increased. Long live literature.
Again, the Guardian has that covered.

Latest on who is to blame:

Salman Rushdie, who was stabbed repeatedly at a public appearance in New York state, and his supporters are to blame for the attack,Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson has said.

Freedom of speech did not justify Rushdie’s insults upon religion in his writing, Nasser Kanaani said in a press briefing on Monday. — Guardian

There you go...

Meanwhile:

Police are investigating a threat against JK Rowling that was made after she posted her reaction on social media to the attack on Salman Rushdie.

Rowling tweeted on Friday: “Horrifying news. Feeling very sick right now. Let him be OK.”

A Twitter user under the name Meer Asif Asiz replied: “Don’t worry you are next.” — Olivier5

I know we are travelling away from the initial OP but I think it's worthwhile to view in the greater context:
(Mods @Hanover not sure about splitting this off to a separate thread. It is all so inter-related)

In any future monument to murdered, tortured, imprisoned and persecuted writers, Rushdie will feature large. On 12 August he was stabbed on stage by an assailant at a literary event at Chautauqua, a venerable American institution in upstate New York. Yet again “that sort of thing never happens here” has been proven false: in our present world, anything can happen anywhere. American democracy is under threat as never before: the attempted assassination of a writer is just one more symptom.

Without doubt, this attack was directed at him because his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, a satiric fantasy that he himself believed was dealing with the disorientation felt by immigrants from (for instance) India to Britain, got used as a tool in a political power struggle in a distant country.

When your regime is under pressure, a little book-burning creates a popular distraction. Writers don’t have an army. They don’t have billions of dollars. They don’t have a captive voting block. They thus make cheap scapegoats. They’re so easy to blame: their medium is words, which are by nature ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, and they themselves are often mouthy, if not downright curmudgeonly. Worse, they frequently speak truth to power. Even apart from that, their books will annoy some people. As writers themselves have frequently said, if what you’ve written is universally liked, you must be doing something wrong. But when you offend a ruler, things can get lethal, as many writers have discovered.

In Rushdie’s case, the power that used him as a pawn was the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. In 1989, he issued a fatwa – a rough equivalent to the bulls of excommunication used by medieval and renaissance Catholic popes as weapons against both secular rulers and theological challengers such as Martin Luther. Khomeini also offered a large reward to anyone who would murder Rushdie. There were numerous killings and attempted assassinations, including the stabbing of the Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi in 1991. Rushdie himself spent many years in enforced hiding, but gradually he came out of his cocoon – the Toronto PEN event being the most significant first step – and, in the past two decades, he’d been leading a relatively normal life.
— Margaret Atwood - the Guardian

Salman Rushdie: Iran blames writer and supporters for stabbing

But on Monday, Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani - giving the country's first official reaction - said Tehran "categorically" denied any link, adding "no-one has the right to accuse the Islamic Republic of Iran".

However, he said freedom of speech did not justify Mr Rushdie insulting religion in his writing.

"In this attack, we do not consider anyone other than Salman Rushdie and his supporters worthy of blame and even condemnation," the spokesman said during his weekly press conference in Tehran.

"By insulting the sacred matters of Islam and crossing the red lines of more than 1.5 billion Muslims and all followers of the divine religions, Salman Rushdie has exposed himself to the anger and rage of the people."

So they say the attack is justified.

This: a few translators and sympthasizers have already been attacked. The Japanese translator died and the Norwegian and Italian translators survived.

We got guys ready to kill for hearsay, for a fucking rumor...

I guess some people beg to be manipulated. — Olivier5

I unfortunately do not share your disbelief. Isn't every religious war exactly this? It requires you to buy into the religious fundamental assumptions that I'm pretty certain most believers never experienced either. God is infallible, omnipresent, angels, hell, heaven, etc.

I suppose it's not so much manipulation but the indoctrination resulting from whatever society you grow up into. Most people do not question their position or role in that society. And I'd say "education" is an important factor in avoiding this but then Iran was well-educated and "modern" well into the 70s. So it's also politics and how politics and religious thinking can be (mis)used. Just like "God save America", "God is with us!" and "I'm doing God's work" are and were used for political purposes.

Another excellent piece mentioned our 'internalisation' of the fatwah with links to other articles.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/13/we-internalised-the-fatwa-against-salman-rushdie-this-horrific-attack-is-what-follows — Amity

This is a good article and makes an interesting link to identity politics.

Upon reflection, what surprises me is that despite the decentralised nature of religious leadership in Islam, such a fatwa can have such a far-reaching almost monolithic agreement with the fatwa even by Muslims who aren't part of the religious tradition of Ayatollah Khomeini. I somehow feel that it can't just be identity politics that resulted in that. Am I overestimating European societies ability to create room for people to have their own opinions about these sort of things? Hell, I have very fundamental different views than my parents about almost everything to do with politics.

So they say the attack is justified. — Michael

Yes. And from the same BBC article, the sickening:

Iranian media have extensively commented on the attack, calling it "divine retribution".

Iran's state broadcaster daily Jaam-e Jam highlighted the news that Rushdie might lose an eye following the attack, saying "an eye of the Satan has been blinded". — BBC News

Absolutely disgusting. What can be done about it?

Mr Blinken had earlier denounced Iran's state institutions for inciting violence against the author.

He said in a statement that Mr Rushdie had "consistently stood up for the universal rights of freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, and freedom of the press".

"While law enforcement officials continue to investigate the attack, I am reminded of the pernicious forces that seek to undermine these rights, including through hate speech and incitement to violence.

"Specifically, Iranian state institutions have incited violence against Rushdie for generations, and state-affiliated media recently gloated about the attempt on his life. This is despicable."

Mr Blinken added the US and its partners would use "every appropriate tool" at their disposal to stand up to what he called "these threats".

***
So, there we have it:
'Every appropriate tool' against 'pernicious forces', 'hate speech' and 'incitement to violence'.

I hope that includes all domestic extremism too.
But when Presidents get away with it...this gives me no hope.
Meaningless words without action against powerful words of anger.

And we spend time looking for who condemns attacks.
What will change...?
It seems hatred and division rule.
No matter what.

Funny. It’s also funny that on the day before the Salman attack a man attacked the FBI armed with an assault rifle. This man was also at the January 6th assault on the Capital.

Many Trumpists openly advocate for the establishment of a Christian theocracy in the US.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/13/extremists-like-marjorie-taylor-greene-are-the-future-of-the-republican-party

That point was covered in a recent Guardian article.
Basically, it doesn't matter the contents, it's the principle...the mere fact of criticism. — Amity

Ok but what criticism? If memory serves, the Satanic Verses does NOT read like a criticism of Islam at all, more like an independent exploration.

Ok but what criticism? If memory serves, the Satanic Verses does NOT read like a criticism of Islam at all, more like an independent exploration. — Olivier5

I haven't read it. Not to my taste when published but strangely enough had just been thinking of it when the attack happened.

As to how it reads, like any book, even the cover and title can trigger.
So perhaps not an either/or but both depending on interpretation.
I'll leave it there, for now.

As to how it reads, like any book, even the cover and title can trigger.
So perhaps not an either/or but both depending on interpretation. — Amity

I guess I should read it again. It's (at least superficially) about Satan, known as Shaitan in Islam. And many other things.

A quick check on the history behind the title:

The Satanic Verses are words of "satanic suggestion" which the Islamic prophet Muhammad is alleged to have mistaken for divine revelation.[1] The verses praise the three pagan Meccan goddesses: al-Lāt, al-'Uzzá, and Manāt and can be read in early prophetic biographies of Muhammad by al-Wāqidī, Ibn Sa'd and the tafsir of al-Tabarī. The first use of the expression in English is attributed to Sir William Muir in 1858.[2]

The incident is accepted as true by modern scholars of Islamic studies, under the criterion of embarrassment, citing the implausibility of early Muslim biographers fabricating a story so unflattering about their prophet.[3][4] It was accepted by religious authorities for the first two centuries of the Islamic era, but was later rejected by some religious scholars (Ulama) as incompatible with Muhammad's perfection ('isma), implying that Muhammad is infallible and therefore cannot be fooled by Satan.[...]

There are numerous accounts of the incident, which differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, but they may be broadly collated to produce a basic account.[5] The different versions of the story are recorded in early tafsirs (Quranic commentaries) and biographies of the Prophet, such as Ibn Ishaq's.[6] In its essential form, the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert his kinsmen and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. As he was reciting these verses of Sūrat an-Najm,[7] considered a revelation from the angel Gabriel:

"Have you thought of al-Lāt and al-'Uzzá? And about the third deity, al-Manāt?"
–Quran 53:19–20

Satan tempted him to utter the following line:

"These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for."

Al-Lāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshipped by the Meccans. Discerning the precise meaning of the word gharāniq has proven difficult, as it is a hapax legomenon (i.e. used only once in the text).

Commentators wrote that it meant "the cranes". The Arabic word does generally mean a "crane" – appearing in the singular as ghirnīq, ghurnūq, ghirnawq and ghurnayq, and the word has cousin forms in other words for birds, including "raven, crow" and "eagle".[8] Taken as a segment, "exalted gharāniq" has been translated by Orientalist William Muir to mean "exalted women", while contemporary academic Muhammad Manazir Ahsan has translated the same segment as "high-soaring ones (deities)". Thus, whether the phrase had intended to attribute a divine nature to the three "idols" is a matter of dispute.[9]

In either case, scholars generally agree on the meaning of the second half of the verse, "whose intercession is hoped for", and this by itself would contradict a core tenet of what would become orthodox Islamic doctrine, namely that no saint or deity – nor Muhammad himself – can intercede for Muslims.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses

Funny. It’s also funny that on the day before the Salman attack a man attacked the FBI armed with an assault rifle. This man was also at the January 6th assault on the Capital.

Many Trumpists openly advocate for the establishment of a Christian theocracy in the US. — praxis

I don't follow the relevance of these references. Even if a moral equivalency could be concluded (and I think the distinctions might be significant enough that it can't be (as the basis for the attacks on the FBI is an argument of abuse of power in trying to seize illegally stored documents from the former President), what difference would it make to prove we've got just as bad Christians actors as we do Muslim actors? I don't think anyone has made the argument that one group is superior to the other. The argument has been that the Rushdie attack was evil and that the response inappropriate (by being either overly celebratory or muted). Whether that has happened in other places by other groups means very little to this conversation. If there are those attacking the FBI with assault rifles and those attacks are being hailed as justified, then I think we'd all agree that is wrong, but not that it should offer an excuse for others to behave terribly.

I just found it a funny coincidence, both attacks having occured within a day of each other and both being related to the power of theocracy and wannabe theocracy.

I don't follow the relevance of these references. Even if a moral equivalency could be concluded (and I think the distinctions might be significant enough that it can't be (as the basis for the attacks on the FBI is an argument of abuse of power in trying to seize illegally stored documents from the former President), what difference would it make to prove we've got just as bad Christians actors as we do Muslim actors? — Hanover

Because if you point out that only a few progressive Muslims can manage to strongly condemn the attack, then what does this tell us about the guy who runs the Pakistani restaurant down the street? If we ask, he might tell us that Rushdie should have been killed a long time ago. Now what?

What's your response to that? What should we conclude about the Muslims around us?

Because if you point out that only a few progressive Muslims can manage to strongly condemn the attack, then what does this tell us about the guy who runs the Pakistani restaurant down the street? If we ask, he might tell us that Rushdie should have been killed a long time ago. Now what?

What's your response to that? What should we conclude about the Muslims around us? — Tate

It's hard to conclude anything from some anecdotal information, which is why I was looking for some type of statement from leadership. We've made assumptions as to what polling data might show, but I think the conclusion you must draw prior to having supporting data is that we're not in a position to conclude anything.

I think the aim of the OP is trying to deal with how to decipher silence.

I do think most people are pragmatists at a most basic level, meaning their concerns deal with paying their bills, taking care of their families, and doing their day to day activities. If you ask a staunch Republican what he thinks ought be done about this or that, you might get all sorts of aggressive talk that you don't agree with, but come Monday, he's back at work just doing his job. So, I'd agree with the basic statement that most people are not poised to do something crazy, but I also see too much leeway given by some people when crazy people do crazy things.

So, I'd agree with the basic statement that most people are not poised to do something crazy, but I also see too much leeway given by some people when crazy people do crazy things. — Hanover

My way of dealing with it is to put aside the idea of craziness. The guy who attacked Rushdie may have been schizophrenic or something, but look at the part of it that isn't crazy.

Thomas Aquinas said that atheists should be executed. He was echoing Plato. None of those guys were crazy. It's part of who we are as a species to get murderous about sacrilege, which has many forms. I don't say that to apologize for Muslim leaders who are silent now. It's just that I need a way to understand.

So they say the attack is justified. — Michael

Lovely.

Thomas Aquinas said that atheists should be executed. He was echoing Plato. None of those guys were crazy. It's part of who we are as a species to get murderous about sacrilege, which has many forms. I don't say that to apologize for Muslim leaders who are silent now. It's just that I need a way to understand. — Tate

Agree. I believe civilisation really is only a very thin veneer, easily dropped under various circumstances.

:100: sadly.

the Satanic Verses does NOT read like a criticism of Islam at all, more like an independent exploration. — Olivier5

Independent exploration is criticism to a theocracy. Don't forget also that Rushdie is viewed as an apostate which in itself calls for the death penalty.

I'm asking Muslims in the West a very basic question: Will we remain spiritually infantile, caving to cultural pressures to clam up and conform, or will we mature into full-fledged citizens, defending the very pluralism that allows us to be in this part of the world in the first place? My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?

- Irshad Manji

That's a big part of the problem. We got guys ready to kill for hearsay, for a fucking rumor... — Olivier5

:up:

Independent exploration is criticism to a theocracy. Don't forget also that Rushdie is viewed as an apostate which in itself calls for the death penalty. — Tom Storm

Indeed. Still, I remain puzzled with the intensity of the reaction to what I remember as a respectful, even insightful 'novelisation' of Mohammad's revelation.

I'm starting to think that Rushdie's real "crime" was simply to reveal to the world an embarrassing yet probably true story about Mohammad, that of the quranic verses inspired by the Devil (or by politics) and later retracted.

That story reminds us that no religious leader is perfect, not even the greatest one ever. Quite subversive when you think of it.

Indeed. Still, I remain puzzled with the intensity of the reaction to what I remember as a respectful, even insightful 'novelisation' of Mohammad's revelation. — Olivier5

If the Quran is supposed to be divinely inspired then the suggestion some of the text is the consequence of political considerations is blasphemous. That part seems relatively straightforward, if possibly alien/ridiculous to most Christians and atheists.

As a Muslim (though a highly idiosyncratic unorthodox one!) I have observed that there is a huge divergence of interpretations on issues by Muslim scholars.
It's almost like asking what is the mainstream opinion on metaphysics in philosophy.

At the ground level it also varies a lot depending on the degree of "religiosity".
The media always seems to pinpoint the most extreme versions of Islam,but in reality most Muslims are harmless in terms of trying to assassinate someone.

Many Muslims are only aware of the basics of their faith or do not practice at all.
I have heard that many Muslim councils and leaders condemned the attack.
Just like Christianity or atheism it's only the extremists that are troublesome.

Islam as a whole is not dangerous,its extremists that can be.

Thanks for this post and welcome to the forum.

Islam remains a very minority religion where I live, and it's hard to get my finger on the pulse of that part of my/our community, especially with the silence in the press on what the general reaction was.

I would expect the problem to be isolated to extremists, but what some have reported here is that the defamation of Muslim founders is considered by all Muslims to be a great affront to Islam that could understandably result in a violent response, and "extremists" mean Shia adherents, which appears to be over a hundred million people.

Do you agree with these assessments?

I know I've set things out here very starkly, and it's not to be provocative, but it's really to push for an answer because you might be in the best position to know about this.

Thank you.
Defamation of Muhammed is considered insulting by many orthodox Muslim scholars.
As for the average Muslim,I think many are not happy with gratuitous insults,but that doesn't mean engaging in violence. Some more religious types might engage in public protests. But in that way it's no different from any other "group".

As for Shia Islam,its no more extreme than other religions in general. Some elements in Iranian politics do pump out propoganda and initially it was Ayatollah Khomeini who issued the fatwa against Rushdie way back. But still the vast majority of shia were not violent,and individual fatwas by clerics are not necessarily binding.

The media do really misrepresent Islam during these kinds of horrible isolated incidents. Fear sells!
Most ordinary Muslims want a good job,nice family and a peaceful-ish life same as most secular people.

The prophet comes across as a great man, and there is no contempt for Islam in that book whatsoever. — Olivier5

You don't get to decide that.

Your response is typical for the way secularists approach the matter: They see themselves as authorities over "how things really are", as arbiters of the Truth. They see themselves as the ones who get to decide how others should think, feel, speak, and act about things. It's plain old authoritarianism under the guise of humanism.