That's just the thing: It _is_ law. It is _Islamic_ law.
— baker
No, it isn't. Depends on whether a given country recognises is as such. So it might have been law in Iran but it certainly wasn't in the US. — Benkei
The Islamic authorities disagree.
— baker
Point me to the part where they considered the harm principle. They didn't disagree, it simply wasn't a consideration. Your statement is therefore false.
A book that would call for violence against others is not protected speech and does harm others when people act upon the call. Since Rhusdie didn't, your suggested equivocation is wrong footed.
You're simply missing the point and arguing against a straw man. The point is that aggravation is not grounds for punishment.
You currently aggravate me with a badly argued post. Off with your head.
Blasphemy does damage a higher norm.
— baker
Which higher norm?
You're free to follow a religion,
I'm free to ridicule you for it.
This is not an example but an interesting representation of your biases. I talk shit about the USA on a daily basis and I'm fine.
Personally I see double standards and an Elitist mindset from "western" nations and Iran. — Adamski
There should be freespeech but also common sense.
Public calls for political violence are the limit of freespeech for all parties.
I remember feeling that Rushdie expressed the soul-crushing alienation I felt when my mother forced me to conform to the outward rituals of a religion I didn't believe in. — absoluteaspiration
I support Rushdie because he gave voice to my pain without
There isn't any organization that can detect the confusion among non-Muslims about the silence of Islamic leaders. — Tate
Then why condemn what happened to Rushdie? — baker
Google does. I was once having an email conversation about religion with someone. When the discussion came to Islam, the emails came with delays, sometimes for several days. We concluded that the emails were filtered by Google, and that a computer program, perhaps even a person was reading them. — baker
Rushdie and those who defend him are implying that it's okay to reinvent history. You see no problem with that? — baker
"Offending the Prophet" is how they apply what you call the "harm principle". — baker
Respect for religious authority. — baker
As if ridicule would be a civilizational accomplishment. — baker
You're so confident. Wait until you apply for US citizenship or want something else from the US. — baker
Why should Rushdie have to take responsibility? — absoluteaspiration
Rushdie should cry foul as much as he likes, and then let the Islamic community take responsibility for that situation.
I have no idea what kind of alienation you're talking about.
I condemn it because I want a thicker, and better, veneer of civilization. — Bitter Crank
Civilization is what we use to counter
those parts of our brains that send us off into wild rages and flights of irrationality.
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. — Olivier5
None of this of course justifies murder but it's an effort to understand the beef.
Yes, other people should be responsible for one man's existential problems. We form a community with the expectation of tolerating each other's differences. — absoluteaspiration
If you were alienated from a religious community for being an illegitimate child, then why are you arguing on behalf of traditional religion?
The alienation you suffered is plastered all over pop culture. See the Game of Thrones, for example.
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. — baker
He should be free to make any choice he wants to make. — Tom Storm
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.
— baker
So we disagree on this point and the others are not significant enough to follow up. Irshad Manji is a Muslim. When she makes comments about Islam and the wider world community, it is worth listening. That's a judgement of course, and one you obviously don't share. Fine. — Tom Storm
But neither he, nor anyone else, is free to dictate what effect that choice should have on others and how others should respond to it. — baker
It's not fine. It's part of the answer to the OP's quest: to understand religious autonomy. — baker
I condemn it because I want a thicker, and better, veneer of civilization. — Bitter Crank
What's your response to that? What should we conclude about the Muslims around us? — Tate
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. — Hanover
But neither he, nor anyone else, is free to dictate what effect that choice should have on others and how others should respond to it.
— baker
That's a strange way to frame the argument. — Tom Storm
That secondary issue is, should fanatics
have the right to threaten and kill people whose art/opinion they don't like? There's only one correct answer here.
What if it an author wrote a book about a bikie gang and a club decides to kill the author and publisher and anyone else involved because the book took a controversial view of the club's history?
I'm saying it's fine that you make difference judgements to mine - after all no one is going to get killed.
Similarly, Rushdie's provocation is a creation of Islamic repression. — absoluteaspiration
Would the Communists have been right to silence Milan Kundera too?
If a Hugo Award winning writer like GRR Martin is not good enough for you, then how how about something classic like The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.