@Hanover
Well,has he gone through a court of law yet?
The article you linked contains "reportedly","some stories","apparently" all less than certain phrases.

Let's say for arguments sake he legit did this in following Khomeini,does that mean the majority of Muslims agree with him? How many other people tried in all these years?

Also ignoring that not every Iranian or shia cleric agrees with Khomeini.

Finally,I waiting for you to engage fully with my other post rather than focusing on ONE extremist person.
Is it guilt by identity you are insinuating?

@Tate
https://munsifdaily.com/news/india-news/pan-india-news/muslim-cleric-condemn-attack-on-salman-rushdie/

That's the same guy Hanover cited earlier.

@Tate
Yes,I have just seen hanovers post linking it.
So how many do you want off Google?
And was it reported by the media? Remember hsnover had to search for it...That's the point!

Well,has he gone through a court of law yet? — Adamski

I don't think it's reasonably disputed that he is a Shia Muslim, not just based upon his admissions, but also upon the very unlikely coincidence that the attempted murder was upon a person who had a specific directive upon him for his murder from a Shia leader.

Finally,I waiting for you to engage fully with my other post rather than focusing on ONE extremist person.
Is it guilt by identity you are insinuating? — Adamski

I don't think my prior posts were evasive or unclear. He was not a single, one off extremist. He was an adherent of a leader with a following of over millions of people and he did exactly what that leader directed him to. Rushdie had been in hiding for years and remained an object of attack because of this fatwa.

It's one thing to say that the attacker's allegiance was to a radicalized, non-representative Muslim linked religious group (just as you could say about various Christians) as opposed to saying he was this odd-ball Son of Sam sort of character that went out and committed a random act of violence. He was the former.

I have repeatedly not taken aim at every Iranian or Shia, but have really just asked what the response from the Muslim (generally) community was, having specifically cited to an Indian cleric who expressed his condemnation.

I'm not on a covert mission to insinuate anything about innocent people who might share some basic demographic background with the attacker. I don't exactly know why I'd care to do that. All I wanted to know was what the general community reaction was.

And don't get me wrong here. We both live in the same world, and I fully realize that the Muslim community does not feel trusted by the West, feeling like sanctimonious Westerners have no moral authority to criticize Islam after all has been done in the name of Christianity, Judaism, and just general American oil interests. So, when an American steps up and says "why don't you condemn that crazed killer," you bristle. Fair, but not the purpose of the OP.

My point is that I understand all of that, which means I don't need to be schooled on those facts. I was very much asking about something I was terribly ignorant about, which was the inner workings of a Muslim culture I didn't understand, and that's all I really was asking for. If I had something openly angry or critical to say, I'd just say it. You wouldn't have to read between the lines.

@Hanover
Fact is I will read between your lines.

I have repeatedly said Islamic theology is not a monolith,neither is the shia version a monolith.
There are many sects within shia islam.
There are many secular and nominal muslim Iranians.

The average shiah will not attempt this kind of attack and you KNOW this.

You are still terribly ignorant of Islamic culture and guilty of horrible double standards and ignoring what I've written.
Fact Is you probably fear being called out if you really said what you think.

Can you not distinguish between ordinary religious people and political rhethoric?
Or is the non western world held to different standards and looked down upon?
Please,spit out what you are really saying if you can.

I have said exactly what I meant to say, and there's not more that I need to say now that you've offered me permission to speak more freely.

I've not indicated that an average Shiah would attempt anything and I've not imputed blame on anyone other than the attacker. I even specifically stated that religions are not good or evil, but such descriptors lie entirely with people. I asked about the Muslim response, and even indicated several times that this might have to do with a PR issue more than anything else. I recognized different distinctions between Muslim ideologies and acknowledged the same occurred in the West. I even located a response that was very much aligned with what you were saying (i.e. that there is a condemnation by some Muslims for what occurred), only for you to re-post my cite later as your own to prove that I was wrong for believing what you thought I did (which is that there there have been no such condemnations). You will note that I posted that cite and indicated it came with great comfort by me, as opposed to ignoring it, which I would have if my goal was just to blindly self-promote my malicious position.

I'm really not sure whose posts you're confusing with mine. Anyway, I'm fine with emotion, passion, and hostility when it comes to things like this that matter. But, if you're really asking me what I think? It's simply that the Muslim community could do better in expressing its distance from its radicalized components, even if such expression should be unnecessary and feels unfair. This comment has nothing (and I mean truly nothing) with morality. Not doing so does not make anyone more evil; it just exposes them to misinterpretation. What I'm saying has to do with the pragmatic reality of living in a mass media controlled environment where information is largely received and accepted by the masses as truth, without which people draw very different conclusions.

With @baker's permission :joke: , I will continue to explore the Muslim grievances re. the Satanic Verses. The bold parts give a summary.

There are two points in that wiki article quoted above that may be worthy of some further digging. One is this:

The first use of the expression ["satanic verses"] in English is attributed to Sir William Muir in 1858.

So this is not an Arabic phrase, but one coined by a British orientalist, hence a Westerner. Arab scholars do not call these two verses ("These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.") the "satanic" verses; they call them the gharāniq verses (the verses of the cranes).

The title of Rushdie's uses a phrase borrowed from a western characterisation of an incident in the life of Mohammad, a phased not used in Islam. Probably because the reference to the cranes is less embarrassing, less sensational, and more technical.

The title "satanic verses" may thus be seen as tendentious, as not using the due respectful tone and vocabulary one should use while speaking of the Prophet. And it is also western and therefore ideologically suspect from a modern Muslim perspective.

And rightly so IMO, since Muir was a colonizer, in a very literal sense: he was a colonial administrator, enrolling at the age of 18 and serving mainly in the North-West Provinces of British India (now Pakistan) from 1837 to his retirement in 1876, when he became a member of the Council of India in London after a distinguished career. He studied Arabic history and literature. His older brother was John Muir, the Indologist and Sanskrit scholar.

As a matter of fact, Muir's writings about the case have been criticized as polemical or irreverent. These polemics included the episode of the gharāniq verses.

His original book "A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira" was initially published 1861 in four volumes. The book received attention in both literary and missionary circles, and provoked responses ranging from appreciation to criticism. ... A significant rebuttal to Muir's book was written Syed Ahmed Khan in 1870, called A Series of Essays on the Life of Mohammed, and Subjects Subsidiary Thereto.[9] Khan praised Muir's writing talent and familiarity with Oriental literature, but ... accused Muir of misrepresenting the facts and writing with animus. ... Later reviews of the work have also been mixed, with many scholars describing Muir's work as polemical. — Wikipedia

In conclusion, one reason for Muslim ire may be that Rushdie attracted attention to an embarrassing (alleged/reported) incident in Mohammad's life, and used in his book's title a sensationalistic phrase, one that rings well, a bit too well, one that catches attention instantly.

If Rushdie had used a different title, less catchy and sensational, maybe the book would not have sold so well. "The Verses of the Cranes"?

And this too is an accusation one reads on social media: Rushdie did this to sell books. Back to what my door keeper told me: don't write a novel, a work of fancy about Mohammad, in part because that would be disrespectful but also because it would be lowly commercial, hence consumerist, capitalist, sensational, etc. Not serious. Not good.

None of this of course justifies murder but it's an effort to understand the beef.

@Hanover
A fine piece of evasion and mealy mouthed misinformation hanover.

How would you know how the Muslim community distances itself from extremists? How many Muslims do you engage with offline regularly?

If the media is controlled by vested interests ( unless you really think the media is impartial!) why would they report extensively on imams condemning events?

Fact is I had the same complaint twenty years ago,the difference being there was a problem back then,but it's been addressed,now the problem lies with your countries media. What's more my knowledge of the problem came from personal knowledge of directly knowing Muslims.

You seem to think you can criticise purely from your knowledge of American media and Google without having any local knowledge.

Maybe get offline a bit and talk to Muslims if your really that concerned. Because your speaking from major ignorance and not looking at the "impartiality" of the media.
Very poor.

fine piece of evasion and mealy mouthed misinformation hanover. — Adamski

Either that or I rehashed and summarized what I previously said because you asked me to.

How would you know how the Muslim community distances itself from extremists? How many Muslims do you engage with offline regularly? — Adamski

The point of this exercise was to save me from having to conduct street interviews. I can say I now have your opinion for whatever it's worth. Whether I can extrapolate much from my poll of 1 is questionable.

You seem to think you can criticise purely from your knowledge of American media and Google without having any local knowledge — Adamski

So yeah, the question of what the response from the Muslim community has been isn't going to be deciphered by our insulting each other, attacking each other, questioning one another's motives, or arriving at clever one liners. It's an empirical question. So, cite me to whatever link, organization, media outlet you trust, journal article, professor's homepage, or whatever so I can see what you're referencing.

Anyway, let's get back on the right foot here. The conversation was more interesting back then.

nd this too is an accusation one reads on social media: Rushdie did this to seel books. Back to what my door keeper told me: don't write a novel, a work of fancy about Mohammad, in part because that would be disrespectful but also because it would be lowly commercial, hence consumerist, capitalist, sensational, etc. Not serious. Not good. — Olivier5

Rushdie is probably one of the greatest living fiction prose writers in the English language, whose complex stories of identity and colonization are woven in the context of his own Indian/Islamic/English background. The Satanic Versus is exactly the kind of novel one would expect him to write. He should be free to make any choice he wants to make. Best way to understand Rushdie is to read his gorgeous, reflective essays - I'm particularly partial to the compilation Imaginary Homelands.

@Hanover
You reject people's lived experience and think some academic can top what real Muslims actually feel?

As I said before not everything is online or reported.
It's like you want reams of online documents to disprove the guilt you've already imputed.

You are aware that many imams give a speech every Friday and that this is purely oral,it doesn't go online?

In your ignorance of this culture you feel fear and resort to suspicion and media propoganda.

Tell why do many western people on the ground live,work,befriend and marry Muslims,even shia ones!
Nor are they afraid of the average Muslim.

Your attitude is primitive just like a person who wants academic evidence that non white people are not dangerous savages.
Own your ignorance hanover.

The title of Rushdie's uses a phrase borrowed from a western characterisation of an incident in the life of Mohammad, a phased not used in Islam. Probably because the reference to the cranes is less embarrassing, less sensational, and more technical.

The title "satanic verses" may thus be seen as tendentious, as not using the due respectful tone and vocabulary one should use while speaking of the Prophet. And it is also western and therefore ideologically suspect from a modern Muslim perspective. — Olivier5

Didn't original muslims scholars (back in the 600s-700s) actually refer to them as inspired by Satan? Rhushdie's version sounds at least as historically true.

Rushdie is probably one of the greatest living fiction prose writers in the English language — Tom Storm

I agree, and I love his books. Just trying to understand the mainstream Muslim position here.

I've removed the completely irrelevant personal attacks, because this discussion has been civil for a good four pages and I don't want it to degenerate like the Ukraine discussion did. — Jamal

Well done you and @Hanover for keeping this thread clear, relevant and a worthwhile read.
Remarkable patience being shown in some increasingly aggressive responses.
Not an easy subject to discuss.
Thanks to all for keeping the conversation cool :cool:

You reject people's lived experience and think some academic can top what real Muslims actually feel? — Adamski

No, I simply refuse to attribute to a people what a single person has done or said, which includes your comments here. That you don't serve as a particularly positive ambassador for your position hasn't really moved the meter for me here. I realize I'm talking to one guy, one opinion.

Since I can't even begin with most basic factual notions with you, it's hard to make progress. You've presented arguments the attacker doesn't even make for himself (that he's not even a Shia, but even if he happens to be, it's just coincidence, having nothing to do with the act). The truth is he followed his beliefs, set forth by his leader, however bastardized they may have been.

As I said before not everything is online or reported.
It's like you want reams of online documents to disprove the guilt you've already imputed.

You are aware that many imams give a speech every Friday and that this is purely oral,it doesn't go online? — Adamski

This isn't your argument. Your argument is not that "not everything" is reported. It's that "nothing" is reported. My OP asks why nothing is reported. That's the gist of it.

Sure, there's media bias, but you've not even cited to an open forum like this where anyone can say whatever they want.

your ignorance of this culture you feel fear and resort to suspicion and media propoganda. — Adamski

The Guardian was my only cite. Point out the propaganda I cited to.

Tell why do many western people on the ground live,work,befriend and marry Muslims,even shia ones!
Nor are they afraid of the average Muslim. — Adamski

Of course they do, but assuming they don't, and you're right, what bearing does this have on the OP?

Your attitude is primitive just like a person who wants academic evidence that non white people are not dangerous savages.
Own your ignorance hanover. — Adamski

No, I've not asked for conclusory evidence regarding an offensive premise. I've asked for a cite of condemnation. Period. If there were an attack by white supremacists upon blacks, I would absolutely expect outrage from the white and world community, in speech, in writing, in action. I would not call out for proof, as you suggest, that white people generally prove they're worthy. That's the nonsense in your head, not mine.

And the conclusions I've reached on my own are hardly as critical as you suggest, leaning toward the pragmatic, despite your best efforts to point me toward a less generous conclusion. But, like I said, you're just one guy, one opinion.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/13/iran-lebanon-reaction-to-salman-rushdie-attack

Interestingly, the "denouncements" in Iran focus on the detrimental consequences to Iran but not the immorality of the act itself.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/attack-on-salman-rushdie-shows-divisions-among-lebanese-shia-11072441.html

There are vocal Lebanese that denounce it but they in turn receive death threats.

Since I can't every begin with most basic factual notions with you, it's hard to make progress. You've presented arguments the attacker doesn't even make for himself (that he's not even a Shia — Hanover

Wait a minute. You don't know the attacker's identity and motives better than anyone else. My guesses about the extent to which he's a faithful disciple of Ayatollah Khomeini as opposed to a troubled person are as good as yours.

You appear to be bent on taking anything anyone says as a defense of the attack or a vindication of Iran even after they've already condemned it. You've done that to at least two posters so far

Wait a minute. You don't know the attacker's identity and motives better than anyone else. My guesses about the extent to which he's a faithful disciple of Ayatollah Khomeini as opposed to a troubled person are as good as yours.

You appear to be bent on taking anything anyone says as a defense of the attack or a vindication of Iran even after they've already condemned it. You've done that to at least two posters so far — Tate

What happened was the poster said that I had no evidence that the attacker was even a Shiah and so why would I rush to judgment in that regard. I posted to his Facebook page and comments by his mother that indicated he considered himself a Shiah and was acting pursuant to the fatwa. What was being asserted was that the attacker was this lone, crazy, knife wielding attacker suffering purely from mental illness. That, based upon the facts, is burying one's head in the sand. He acted pursuant to an ideology advanced by a religious leader held in much esteem by a large number of people.

I don't take that as a defense of the attack, as even if it were true that he was not acting pursuant to his religious beliefs, the attack is just as wrong. What I do take it to be is simply a misstatement of the facts so as to remove this question entirely from the OP by saying this has nothing to do with Rushdie's work and the Muslim animosity it engendered, but to instead suggest we're just dealing a single nut job.

Those just aren't the facts and it creates the false illusion that this has nothing to do with Islam, Shiahs, the Ayatollah, or Rushdie. It most certainly did, and that is the point of this OP.

What was being asserted was that the attacker was this lone, crazy, knife wielding attacker suffering purely from mental illness. That, based upon the facts, is burying one's head in the sand. He acted pursuant to an ideology advanced by a religious leader held in much esteem by a large number of people. — Hanover

No one asserted that. What was commented was that we don't know. Maybe he did consider himself to be Shia. He still could have been a troubled person.

Yes, his action was obviously called for by a Muslim leader. No one denied that. Adamski was simply explaining that Islam is too fragmented to make much of that.

What I do take it to be is simply a misstatement of the facts so as to remove this question entirely from the OP by saying this has nothing to do with Rushdie's work and the Muslim animosity it engendered, but to instead suggest we're just dealing a single nut job. — Hanover

Adamski didn't say that.

Those just aren't the facts and it creates the false illusion that this has nothing to do with Islam, Shiahs, the Ayatollah, or Rushdie. It most certainly did, and that is the point of this OP. — Hanover

Well, you're so versed on the facts, what does the event and its fallout tell us about mainstream Islam?

Ah, I see he's banned, so no point in continuing to explain what he was saying. :meh:

Well, you're so versed on the facts, what does the event and its fallout tell us about mainstream Islam? — Tate

Hardly a good faith question based upon how it is phrased, but no reason not to just go ahead and hit send the way it is. Why not?

With that qualification:

I've already stated this the best I could, which is that my best guess is that there is not the impetus upon public condemnation within that community that there is other communities, and I'm not clear exactly where that arises from. My suspicion is that it arises over this free speech question generally and what social expectations there are in terms of what is acceptable speech (in terms of criticizing another's belief system), what is mandated speech (in terms of criticizing another's actions in order to bring forth justice) and what is simply pragmatic speech (in terms of obtaining a particular result after certain actions occur).

These are just my thoughts after reading, but I could be wrong. That's why I'm having the conversation.

stated this the best I could, which is that my best guess is that there is not the impetus upon public condemnation within that community — Hanover

Could you specify the community you're talking about?

My suspicion is that it arises over this free speech question generally and what social expectations there are in terms of what is acceptable speech — Hanover

What free speech question?

These are just my thoughts after reading, but I could be wrong. That's why I'm having the conversation. — Hanover

You're having a conversation where you repeatedly misrepresent what others are saying. Is there a reason you feel the need to do that?

Could you specify the community you're talking about? — Tate

No. You'll have to keep this conversation contextualized yourself.

No. You'll have to keep this conversation contextualized yourself. — Hanover

It's not clear at all which community you're talking about. Really and truly. :love:

1. There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. That said, I'm sure Indian Muslims would say cruel things about Rushdie if they weren't terrified of the BJP.

2. Speaking as an Indian ex-Muslim atheist, my understanding is that mainstream Islam is a more explicit version of classic Western conservatism: It doesn't care what you do in private as long as you don't embarrass the community. In fact, one of the asma ul husna (names of God) is al sittir, the one who hides our sins. Allah is understood to be complicit in hiding our sins out of mercy.

In medieval times, the evidentiary standards of religious courts was so high, it was possible to convict only the most shameless criminals. As a result, Europeans considered Islamic morality "degenerate" upto early modern times. In contrast to the current image of Islam as a fundamentalist religion that curbs all worldly pleasure, medieval philosophers regarded Islam as a religion operating under the astrological sign of Venus, making people pleasure-seeking, lascivious and lazy. Why the change? I'm inclined to think that the Terror Management Theory applies very strongly to "Third World" peoples.

3. This no doubt makes Islam a terrible religion in the 21st century, and I don't condone anyone joining it, but it's no worse than Judaism or Christianity. The relevant factor is that Muslims live in poor and/or repressive countries. Christians in Africa and Northeast India inflict similar repressive measures on minorities. Europe was also very similar in the past. Eg. A Jewish zealot once stabbed Spinoza IIRC.

I created a playlist with excerpts from the Quran that may give you a general idea of Islam's style of religiosity: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLz-S1Fiqsmt52eX9vmjGf3OJlrea4Apg

:up:

Sure, that happens. But the point is you don't risk death or maiming by strangers all around the world for decades. Nor will anyone throw acid in your face for being a woman daring to gain an education. For my money you can't compare these expressions of 'authority'. — Tom Storm

Don't confuse an absence of action with an absence of motive. At this very forum, moderators get to tell people to kill themselves or express the desire to kill others. Just in the last couple of weeks, at least three instances of this, by two moderators.

And even if they were exactly the same, this would amount to a tu quoque fallacy.

It wasn't an attempt at justification, but pointing out that those who so severely condemn the "Rushdie attack" are not beyond harboring the same hostility that they so criticize.

Artists in the West can generally be hatefully critical towards power elites and government and religions and not face these problems.

What's the use of being "hatefully critical"?

As for "not facing these problems" when criticizing the government or the elite or religion: absence of retributive action doesn't automatically mean approval or tolerance. Perhaps such retributive action just isn't high on their priority list. Or they are allowing it for their own PR purposes.

Whatever you may have seen does not necessarily warrant calling the quote 'politically correct' as a kind of pejorative. That's a Fox News style comment. But you are correct that some people are hypocrites. Sometimes you can tell if they are or not by how much their public comments have cost them.

And further, for a religious person to request input on how to practice their religion -- from outsiders of that religion??? (Like in the passage you quoted earlier.) This is absurd.

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

:100: sadly. — Bitter Crank

Then why condemn what happened to Rushdie?

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.
— baker

I do, at least for myself. If you disagree, you are welcome to pinpoint what you personally see as the contemptuous parts in Rushdie's book. — Olivier5

Rushdie invented a parallel history for the Prophet. In Islam this is considered unacceptable and punishable.

There is reason to suspect that Rushdie knew what the possible consequences would be but went on anyway; the way he later on defended his work justifies this suspicion.

There is reason to believe that this was a deliberate provocation on his part, and such deliberate provocation is what is problematic.

Why would a civilized, highly moral person resort to provocation?