What is the view of Sunnis towards Shias? — Hanover

Sheer hatred.

1) Political: There is no religious justification for the act but my condemnation would be unpopular with my flock. — Baden

More than unpopular: a Muslim cleric daring to defend Rushdie would become a potential target.

Say there's a case where some Jews in Jerusalem beat the hell out of a Muslim youth and it goes viral in the world's newspapers. Who exactly is responsible for explaining the mainstream Jewish view of that? Which rabbi would do it? How many Jews would applaud it? How many would be aghast? — Tate

Jewish terrorist groups can be found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism

As to each one, you can click to go to that link and see what the response has been and who made it.

Jews are part of the fabric of Western society, especially the US, and have therefore set up specific organizations to respond to issues that affect their community.

You needn't have hierarchical systems or centralization to form organizations responsive to the realities of society. Accepting that the press matters is a Western idea and so I'm not holding all organizations to that understanding, but I do think some recognition must be had that if you're not going to announce your condemnation just to relieve my personal discomfort, I should at least overhear it when you speak among yourselves.

In the same way, Muslims have to tip toe carefully around the Quran to condemn violence. The Prophet was a violent man. — Tate

The OT isn't exactly a book about peace and kindness either.

I don't agree. — Baden

I'm not surprised. The forum and it's leaders allow, promote, disrespect for religion and religious belief in a way that would never be allowed for any other group. The forum means a lot to me, but I think this attitude, policy, is shameful.

Nonsense, we banned one of the best posters we've ever had, @Streetlight, partly for bigotry against Christians and we've banned others for Islamophobia too. E.g.

Also, I hope no one thinks that this type of thing:

I take it for granted that Christians are vicious, vacuous, shells of human beings who actively ruin everything around them when they are not busy raping children or defending those who do.
— Streetlight

is acceptable. If you do, please do us all a favour and leave now. — Baden

Enough said.

(If you want to debate this, you can open a feedback thread but please stay on topic here. )

I take it for granted that Christians are vicious, vacuous, shells of human beings who actively ruin everything around them when they are not busy raping children or defending those who do. — Streetlight

Funny. I think what Streetlight, whom I still mourn, said is more defensible than what Hanover did. It's true. The Catholic Church, including leaders at high levels, allowed the sexual exploitation of thousands of vulnerable children, then helped their rapists, who also included high church leaders, avoid facing the consequences of their actions. I can't imagine a more horrible betrayal.

I wouldn't have said it the way Streetlight did, but his anger and disgust were justified.

It's OK for Street to label Christians rapists or defenders of rapists ("Christians", read it, not "the Catholic Church") but completely unacceptable for Hanover to ask if this attack is consistent with Islam? And all this adds up to us getting things backward? OK, sure.

As I said if you want to open a thread, feel free. Future off-topic comments will be deleted.

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology

If I remember correctly, Rushdie’s crimes were that of blasphemy. Though there is a theological debate whether such a crime should lead to worldly punishment, such as beheading, the very accusation can and has justified religious violence.

As to each one, you can click to go to that link and see what the response has been and who made it. — Hanover

You're right. That's amazing.

I didn't know that. My Persian ex always corrected me and said "It's Farsi idiot".

I had a Persian ex too! Initials MP. Just seeing if we have that in common.

I want to say yes just to see you talk more silliness.

If I emember correctly, Rushdie’s crimes were that of blasphemy. Though there is a theological debate whether such a crime should lead to worldly punishment, such as beheading, the very accusation can and has justified religious violence. — NOS4A2

Oliver offers a good summary here of the book and why it evoked controversy:

I want to say yes just to see you talk more silliness. — Benkei

She was a linguist and she loved it when I corrected her speech so that she could learn how Americans really spoke. So, if you met her after me, you now know why she says "Fuck yeah motherfucker" instead of "yes, thank you.."

It's a bit like if your French girlfriend would say: I don't speak French, it's called Français.

My question:

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology?
— Hanover

Is the final answer: Yes to Shia Muslims, no to Sunni Muslims?

Or is there another distinction I've missed with my Western eyes? — Hanover

Your question asks about mainstream Muslim theology and mainstream Muslim theology applies to all Muslims, or rather, what is common to all sects of Islam. Blasphemy in Islam is an impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad, or anything considered sacred in Islam. The Quran admonishes blasphemy but does not specify any worldly punishment for it.

I'm sure it's been mentioned that Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwā.

According to Islamic sources Nadr ibn al-Harith, who was an Arab Pagan doctor from Taif, used to tell stories of Rustam and Esfandiyār to the Arabs and scoffed at Muhammad. After the battle of Badr, al-Harith was captured and, in retaliation, Muhammad ordered his execution in hands of Ali, who was a cousin, son-in-law, and companion of Muhammad.

The following is a depiction of Nadr ibn al-Harith's punishment in the presence of Muhammad.

Your question asks about mainstream Muslim theology and mainstream Muslim theology applies to all Muslims, or rather, what is common to all sects of Islam. Blasphemy in Islam is an impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad, or anything considered sacred in Islam. — praxis

And so this would blur the distinction between the Sunni and Shia condemnation of the Satanic Verses (as they'd both be in agreement there), but they'd vary drastically in their response in terms of advocating violence.

It'd be akin to a peaceful abortion protestor versus an abortion bomber, where the underlying sentiment is the same, but the response different. Again, questioning the wisdom of silence in the analogy just given, if I were in a group that advocated non-violent protest against abortion, and a bombing took place, I'd realize the significance of the moment and formally declare my distance from it.

In all fairness, no religion cares much for the blasphemous.

Leviticus 24:16 says, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.”

Leviticus 24:16 says, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.” — praxis

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.

It's part of the reason for the OP, in trying to figure out the real theology because it's often very distant from its literal decrees.

In all fairness, no religion cares much for the blasphemous. — praxis

It probably goes back to that time somebody said "God sucks!" and then the crops were eaten by locusts, so they made it illegal to say things like that.

It's part of the reason for the OP, in trying to figure out the real theology because it's often very distant from its literal decrees. — Hanover

I thought your question was reasonable and apropos given what has happened. And if this claim is true: -

a Muslim cleric daring to defend Rushdie would become a potential target. — Olivier5

- then we have a religion with some considerable problems above and beyond any sectarian variations. 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." This may be the nub of it and we forget how violently this religion often feels about blasphemy and apostasy.

I am reminded of the work of gay Islamic writer and feminist Irshad Manji who has argued quite vociferously for years now that Islam desperately needs a reformation - a point alluded to earlier by @Bitter Crank.

It is time for those who love liberal democracy to join hands with Islam's reformists. Here is a clue to who's who: Moderate Muslims denounce violence committed in the name of Islam but insist that religion has nothing to do with it; reformist Muslims, by contrast, not only deplore Islamist violence but admit that our religion is used to incite it.

— Irshad Manji

Yeah, that’s definitely what happened and the reason why blasphemy isn’t tolerated.

argued quite vociferously for years now that Islam desperately needs a reformation — Tom Storm

Yes. It’s a religion that’s gone through many phases; our western perception of it is not an accurate picture of what it’s been for the majority of its history.

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

I read a biography of Spinoza that said Jewish communities banished and assassinated members who broke their rules. Spinoza was banished, but assassination was a possibility.

our western perception of it is not an accurate — Noble Dust

Certainly in pop-culture but most people I know admire Islam's past cultural history and its capacity for pluralism and diversity. There's a great book by Stephen Schwartz about this called The Two Faces of Islam.

Yeah, that’s definitely what happened and the reason why blasphemy isn’t tolerated. — Noble Dust

No doubt

read a biography of Spinoza that said Jewish communities banished and assassinated members who broke their rules. Spinoza was banished, but assassination was a possibility. — Tate

Spinoza is a well known case of banishment.

I'm not trying to argue here who's best and will concede religion does all sorts of evil. The OP wasn't focused on that.

If you're interested in the halacha of the Jewish death penalty, you can search this forum or Google it, but I think it's far afield from the focus here. My point here being if I did show the very limited Jewish application of the death penalty, that hardly means the religion superior and I don't want to insinuate that.

There's a great book by Stephen Schwartz about this called The Two Faces of Islam. — Tom Storm

Thanks, I'll check that out. I'm trying to deepen my understanding of Islam.

I'm not trying to argue here who's best — Hanover

Me neither. I think we've established that all three of the "religions of the book" have histories of executing blasphemers. I would say Muslims are still doing it because they haven't evolved out that the way Christians and Jews have. They're culturally backward in some ways.

Is it part of mainstream Islam? Yes. For now.

In a current New Yorker piece, Robin Wright says

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini never read Salman Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Verses,” his son Ahmed told me in Tehran, in the early nineteen-nineties. The Iranian leader’s murderous 1989 fatwa against the British American writer was a political move to exploit the erupting fury in Pakistan, India, and beyond over a fictional dream sequence involving the Prophet Muhammad. The book’s passages, which portrayed human weaknesses and undermined the Prophet’s credibility as a messenger of God, were blasphemous to some Muslims.

The Ayatollah was shrewd that way. At the time, the young Islamic Republic was emerging from existential challenges: an eight-year war with Iraq that produced at least a million casualties; widespread domestic discontent; deepening political rifts among the clergy; a flagging economy that had rationed basic food and fuel; and a decade of diplomatic isolation. Khomeini condemned Rushdie, as well as his editors and publishers in any language, to death.He called on “all valiant Muslims wherever they may be” to go out and kill all of them—without delay—“so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. Whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr” and ascend instantly to heaven. Tehran offered a reward that eventually grew to more than three million dollars.

Khomeini often capitalized on issues that distracted public attention from the Revolution’s fissures and failures.