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

Do you dispute that Iran is a sovereign country?

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.

"Offending the Prophet" is how they apply what you call the "harm principle".

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.

Rushdie and those who defend him are implying that it's okay to reinvent history. You see no problem with that?

You're simply missing the point and arguing against a straw man. The point is that aggravation is not grounds for punishment.

Of course it is, and always has been. The only qualification is that not everyone has the means to act on it.

You currently aggravate me with a badly argued post. Off with your head.

So now I am responsible for how you feel?? To the point where you want to kill me????

Blasphemy does damage a higher norm.
— baker

Which higher norm?

Respect for religious authority.

You're free to follow a religion,

Since this is a philosophy forum, the concept of freedom of religion shouldn't be treated so lightly.
Doxastic voluntarism is a highly problematic notion; as is the idea that one can unilaterally choose which religion to follow, regardless of whether one is accepted by its members or not. We have threads on this.

I'm free to ridicule you for it.

As if ridicule would be a civilizational accomplishment.

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.

You're so confident. Wait until you apply for US citizenship or want something else from the US.

Thanks to the internet, I read a pirated ebook of the Satanic Verses decades ago, back when I was in middle school.

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. I support Rushdie because he gave voice to my pain without, unlike the nationalists, calling for my community to be exterminated.

Personally I see double standards and an Elitist mindset from "western" nations and Iran. — Adamski

Of course. It would be comical if it wouldn't be so sad to see various authoritarians fighting among eachother. If only the planet wouldn't have to pay the price for it.

There should be freespeech but also common sense.
Public calls for political violence are the limit of freespeech for all parties.

The problem is that when one party breaks the agreement of non-violence, should the others desist from violence or not? And on what metaphysical grounds?

So far, the general practice in human cultures has been retribution. Nobody wants to make the first step and desist from provocation. Nobody wants to refrain from retribution. So here we are.

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 also remember the soul-crushing alienation I felt growing up as someone who was ostracized from the religious community by birth. What I'd give to be able to belong! But no, it was as if I had the mark of the devil on my forehead, for all to see.

Nobody I know gives voice to that.

I support Rushdie because he gave voice to my pain without

One has to take responsibility for one's situation, whatever it may be. Crying foul, wanting the religious community to understand one's plight is a waste of time and effort, dangerously so.

There isn't any organization that can detect the confusion among non-Muslims about the silence of Islamic leaders. — Tate

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.

Then why condemn what happened to Rushdie? — baker

I condemn it because I want a thicker, and better, veneer of civilization. Civilization is what we use to counter those parts of our brains that send us off into wild rages and flights of irrationality. Religion has delivered a decidedly mixed performance as a component of civilization. Islam and Christianity have a particularly mixed record. Where/when/why it fuels uncivilized behavior, it should be pruned.

Why should Rushdie have to take responsibility? 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. Religious communities usually welcome converts. Maybe you should write your own Satanic Verses.

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

Could be.

Per the NY Times, the assailant was a troubled loner.. Which is what a high percentage of us figured when we first heard about it.

Rushdie and those who defend him are implying that it's okay to reinvent history. You see no problem with that? — baker

Rhusdie's account is historically more accurate than what is now considered truth among Muslims.

"Offending the Prophet" is how they apply what you call the "harm principle". — baker

The prophet is dead, he can't be harmed.

Respect for religious authority. — baker

Respect for people sure, respect for things not so much. Respect for people means respect for life, that always comes before authority.

As if ridicule would be a civilizational accomplishment. — baker

Most certainly. George Carlin is a prime example of how to marry ridicule with intelligent commentary. I'm obviously not as funny but I'm several hundred steps above promoting people to kill someone. I confidently and comfortably claim the higher moral ground there.

You're so confident. Wait until you apply for US citizenship or want something else from the US. — baker

I wouldn't want anything from the USA even when it was the last government on Earth. It's only marginally better than most dictatorships.

Why should Rushdie have to take responsibility? — absoluteaspiration

Everyone does, or else they are left to the mercy of others.

Rushdie should cry foul as much as he likes, and then let the Islamic community take responsibility for that situation.

Really? You believe that other people are responsible for one particular person's existential problems?

I have no idea what kind of alienation you're talking about.

I'm talking about being born as an illegitimate child into a religious community where being illegitimate amounted to having committed a crime, a stigma one can never recover from.

I condemn it because I want a thicker, and better, veneer of civilization. — Bitter Crank

Only a veneer? See, that's the problem: setting one's expectations so low.

Civilization is what we use to counter

those parts of our brains that send us off into wild rages and flights of irrationality.

Are you sure about that? People often like to blame our lizard brain, yet all too often, it's just an empty refrain.
The dichotomy between the lower and higher parts of our brains seems first and foremost to be a convenient excuse for people to continue to act on lower intentions, to renounce the power that they have. One has to wonder why. The simplest answer is that those "lowly intentions" aren't actually lowly at all.

Only a veneer? See, that's the problem: setting one's expectations so low. — baker

I thought the problem was being stabbed in the face for writing a book.

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. You have assumed a definite cutoff point for tolerance without arguing for it.

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 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

Agreed.

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

The consequences for a transgression need to be serious. What is considered serious depends on the particular religion's metaphysical system.

In Buddhism, for example, the worst thing that can happen to a person who disrespects the Buddha is that the advanced practitioners shun them. This is deemed worse than being physically killed (such as by being shot or hanged).
Outsiders will probably laugh at this, but to the Buddhists, this is the worst that can ever happen to a person, being cut off from the Teaching.

From the perspective of Muslims, being maimed or killed probably isn't the worst thing that can happen to a person.

The prophet is dead, he can't be harmed. — Benkei

What is wrong with you? Are you unable to see things from another's perspective??

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

Rushdie didn't do his part. He wants other people to respect him, to tolerate him at least, but he doesn't want to return the favor.

If you were alienated from a religious community for being an illegitimate child, then why are you arguing on behalf of traditional religion?

I'm not arguing on behalf of it, I'm presenting its stance. Because nobody else does that here, yet it's crucial for understanding where they come from, and it's crucial for understanding conflicts with it.


One can save oneself a lot of time and grief by understanding traditional religion. It puzzles me how come more people don't take this route.

The alienation you suffered is plastered all over pop culture. See the Game of Thrones, for example.

Yeah, that reeeeally offers brilliant ways of coping. The dragons, they make it all so viable.

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.

I thought the problem was being stabbed in the face for writing a book. — praxis

This kind of trivializing really doesn't help.

He should be free to make any choice he wants to make. — 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.

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

It's not fine. It's part of the answer to the OP's quest: to understand religious autonomy.

Rushdie does return the favor. The Satanic Verses is highly ambiguous in its condemnation of Islam, conforming to the emotional contours of many Indian ex-Muslims including myself.

In fact, the Rushdie has been more pro-Islam than (IIRC) Nobel-nominated writers like Milan Kundera have been pro-Communist, i.e. not at all. Kundera has argued that Communism is an eastern invasion into a Western cultural space like Czechoslovakia. Although that sentiment sounds borderline fascist, I don't condemn him for it. People who have internalized repression tend to scream out their freedom more loudly than strictly necessary. Similarly, Rushdie's provocation is a creation of Islamic repression. 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?

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. 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?

It's not fine. It's part of the answer to the OP's quest: to understand religious autonomy. — baker

I'm saying it's fine that you make difference judgements to mine - after all no one is going to get killed.

[

I condemn it because I want a thicker, and better, veneer of civilization. — Bitter Crank

Is condemnation a moral imperative?

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

People threatening others with death is quite a common occurence. Just look at this forum. Even moderators quite nonchalantly tell others to kill themselves or that they deserve death.
What should we conclude about the people around us?

My point is, those Muslims who believe that someone deserves to be killed aren't some kind of aberration, exception. Liberals, secularists, also threaten with death. (And insofar they hold positions of power, they make it happen too, legally.)

I think that we can conclude from that that some (if not many, most) people want to rule over the lives and deaths of others.

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

It's more relevant in how one interprets the discrepancy: Do they not stone people because they have mercy, or see them as "fellow humans who shouldn't be hurt"? Or is it because they don't believe that the religious decree was actually issued by God?

Or, you know, they might be Rushdie fans who are afraid to speak out.

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

Why strange? Can you explain?

That secondary issue is, should fanatics

So a "fanatic" is now a clearly definable and universally binding category?

have the right to threaten and kill people whose art/opinion they don't like? There's only one correct answer here.

Should people have the right to act in bad faith, to be hostile, to provoke others, and yet others must take this stoically, because the hater's rights are above every other concern? 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?

Some people have too much time and money on their hands.

I'm saying it's fine that you make difference judgements to mine - after all no one is going to get killed.

No, it's not fine. We cannot peacefully coexist that way.

Why do I have to "coexist peacefully" with an unjust medieval tradition? I want to live in a society where I'm free to tell the world the pain I suffered because of their hypocrisy. Many others are much worse off than me thanks to them.

Similarly, Rushdie's provocation is a creation of Islamic repression. — absoluteaspiration

Again, a case of blaming others.

And a repression of what exactly? Rushdie was at no time a citizen of an Islamic republic where he would be bound, by his citizenship, to a particular religion. So he has no grievance of this kind. Sure, his parents expected him to comply with certain norms. So what? It's teenager rebellion on his part.

Would the Communists have been right to silence Milan Kundera too?

Who says they didn't keep him around for strategic purposes?


-----

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?

Just what do you think that reading books like that can accomplish? All they do is make people hop from one train of passion onto another one, while the problem of suffering remains looming as ever.

while the problem of suffering remains looming as ever. — baker

I'm pretty happy most of the time.