. I do know that Zoroastrianism allows you to kill gay people where they stand, and doing so forgives your sins — absoluteaspiration

That's insane.

I think the movie 300 depicted the Ancient Persians in line with the old European conception of Muslims as lascivious degenerates. — absoluteaspiration

Funny, that whole movie has been accused of being soft gay porn. Did you see the Doraleous and Associates spoof?

I'm by no means an expert on Islam. (I've done more reading in philosophy and computer science.) My understanding is that Allah created the world by will. If you apply your suggestion to Islam, then Muslims should have a lot of respect for individual will, and leave most punishments up to God.

Besides, do you have any evidence that free speech was considered a right before the enlightenment? I've never seen any indication of that. IIRC the word "heresy" is Greek for choice. A "heretic" was someone who chose his own beliefs.

To be fair, medieval philosophers did consider Christianity to be the religion of Mercury because Jesus is the Word. But if we run with that, some Shia Muslims consider Ali to be the Book of God. Iran shouldn't be censoring any books.

I also know for a fact that Shia hadiths have incredible respect for the intellect. Iran shouldn't be censoring sincere intellectuals, then. I believe the name of the hadith book is Usul al-Kafi. You might also find a few lectures on the Shia intellect on YouTube. Try the channel: al hujjah Islamic seminary. Go to playlists and find the oldest year one demo titled Usul al-Kafi. If you wait a while, I'll find it myself and paste the link here.

Edit: Found it: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrK-FXb0E44tRfxDKOeq4_wLXhXURvoNc

No, thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. :up:

I can but making shit up as if those ayatollahs considered the harm principle has nothing to do with seeing a different perspective.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/19/salaman-rushdie-attack-was-unjustifiable-says-pakistans-imran-khan

The anger is "understandable". Is it really though? It's understandable in the sense people are emotional and half of the time act like sheep and do act irrational. Other than that, not so much understanding here for many reasons. The most important one that Rhusdie's representation of that time is exactly what Muslim scholars talked about until the 800s. So Islamic religious truth in this case is a joke and if Khomeini was worth his salt as a scholar, he would know this. So we can rest assured this was entirely political.

A Saudi woman will spend 34 years in prison for tweets.

Is this the kind of conservative climate you were talking about?

I wouldn't describe Saudi Arabia as conservative. It's a totalitarian nightmare. Wahhabism is anything but mainstream.

Is this the kind of conservative climate you were talking about? — Tate

Saudi Arabia lives in a feudal system ruled by families. They do not know anything about conservatives, lefties, trade workers, representatives, seats, etc... or what we see as "normal democracies" in our world

Wahhabism is anything but mainstream. — absoluteaspiration

Isn't it basically Salafism? Why wouldn't you call that conservative?

Saudi Arabia lives in a feudal system ruled by families. They do not know anything about conservatives, lefties, trade workers, representatives, seats, etc... or what we see as "normal democracies" in our world — javi2541997

Their version of Islam seeks a return to old ways. In any society, I would call that conservative.

, I would call that conservative. — Tate

I disagree. I think you are misunderstanding conservative with tradionalism. Conservatives tend to be related to capitalism, free market, liberalism, etc...
Anyway I still think those characteristics do not fit in a state like Saudi Arabia. As I said they are just feudal

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. — Benkei

I was getting to that. The second point I would like to raise is related to the current status of Muslim doxa or exegesis on the gharāniq verses, in terms of their being considered authentic history or not. I quote from wiki again:

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.

Emphasis added to show the evolution in the interpretation, from the story being genuine early on in the history of Islam, to it being seen as improbable based on dogmatic grounds of the Prophet's infallibility.

I can't verify all the authors but the original account seems to be that of Tabari in his History of Kings and Prophets (c. 915 CE), volume 6. It goes like this:

... The prophet was eager for the welfare of his people, desiring to win them to him by any means he could. It has been reported that he longed for a way to win them, and part of what he did to that end is what Ibn Humayd told me, from Salama, from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from Yazīd ibn Ziyād al-Madanī, from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazī:

When the prophet saw his people turning away from him, and was tormented by their distancing themselves from what he had brought to them from God, he longed in himself for something to come to him from God which would draw him close to them. With his love for his people and his eagerness for them, it would gladden him if some of the hard things he had found in dealing with them could be alleviated. He pondered this in himself, longed for it, and desired it.

Then God sent down the revelation. 'By the star when it sets! Your companion has not erred or gone astray, and does not speak from mere fancy…' [Q.53:1] When he reached God's words, "Have you seen al-Lāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt, the third, the other?' [Q.53:19–20] Satan cast upon his tongue, because of what he had pondered in himself and longed to bring to his people, 'These are the high-flying cranes and their intercession is to be hoped for.'

When Quraysh heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him. The Believers trusted in their prophet with respect to what he brought them from their Lord: they did not suspect any slip, delusion or error. When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command. Those mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods. In the whole mosque there was no believer or kāfir who did not prostrate. Only al-Walīd bin al-Mughīra, who was an aged shaykh and could not make prostration, scooped up in his hand some of the soil from the valley of Mecca [and pressed it to his forehead]. Then everybody dispersed from the mosque.

The Quraysh went out and were delighted by what they had heard of the way in which he spoke of their gods. They were saying, 'Muhammad has referred to our gods most favourably. In what he has recited he said that they are "high-flying cranes whose intercession is to be hoped for".'

Those followers of the Prophet who had emigrated to the land of Abyssinia heard about the affair of the prostration, and it was reported to them that Quraysh had accepted Islam. Some men among them decided to return while others remained behind.

Gabriel came to the Prophet and said, 'O Muhammad, what have you done! You have recited to the people something which I have not brought you from God, and you have spoken what He did not say to you.'

At that the Prophet was mightily saddened and greatly feared God. But God, of His mercy, sent him a revelation, comforting him and diminishing the magnitude of what had happened. God told him that there had never been a previous prophet or apostle who had longed just as Muhammad had longed, and desired just as Muhammad had desired, but that Satan had cast into his longing just as he had cast onto the tongue of Muhammad. But God abrogates what Satan has cast, and puts His verses in proper order. That is, 'you are just like other prophets and apostles.'

And God revealed: 'We never sent any apostle or prophet before you but that, when he longed, Satan cast into his longing. But God abrogates what Satan casts in, and then God puts His verses in proper order, for God is all-knowing and wise.' [Q.22:52]

So God drove out the sadness from His prophet and gave him security against what he feared. He abrogated what Satan had cast upon his tongue in referring to their gods: 'They are the high-flying cranes whose intercession is accepted [sic]'. [Replacing those words with] the words of God when Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other are mentioned: 'Should you have males and He females [as offspring]! That, indeed, would be an unfair division. They are only names which you and your fathers have given them".

[...] When there had come from God the words which abrogated what Satan had cast on to the tongue of His prophet, Quraysh said, 'Muhammad has gone back on what he said about the status of our gods relative to God, changed it and brought something else', for the two phrases which Satan had cast on to the tongue of the Prophet had found a place in the mouth of every polytheist. They, therefore, increased in their evil and in their oppression of everyone among them who had accepted Islam and followed the Prophet.

I disagree. I think you are misunderstanding conservative with tradionalism. — javi2541997

Conservative: averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values. Here

Conservatives tend to be related to capitalism, free market, liberalism, etc... — javi2541997

That's a narrow definition. Look to context to know when you need to widen it.

The second point says: in a political context the one I was referring to since the beginning) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
Similar:
right-wing
reactionary
traditionalist
unprogressive
establishmentarian

The second point says: in a political context the one I was referring to since the beginning) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
Similar:
right-wing
reactionary
traditionalist
unprogressive
establishmentarian — javi2541997

Yes. I agree the word can be used that way. It's also correct to call Salafism conservative or ultra-conservative. It's useful to think of it that way.

Ultra-conservatives are people who hold to tradition as if to a rock in a storm. They're like that because their way of life is under attack, or they perceive that it is.

:up: :100:

I previously used "conservative" to mean an ideology that seeks to maintain appearances while leaving private life to the individual conscience. All authentic Islamic schools follow this pattern. Wahhabism is a new ideology that seeks to bring Arab society in line with how it was structured in the lifetime of Muhammad. (As the Wahhabists understand it, which is historically dubious.)

To be consistent with my previous usage, I'd have to classify Wahhabists as extreme reactionaries. This is also consistent with Islamic scholarship. When they first appeared, Wahhabists were denounced as heretics by the consensus of Islamic scholars.

Traditionally, Islam has never understood itself as seeking to preserve one culture or another. Its purpose is to worship God and create a just society as Islam understands it: feed the poor, care for orphans, prevent female babies from being abandoned, prevent slaves and animals from being overly mistreated, etc. For taking good care of the world, they expected its creator to reward them in extremely sensual ways.

IIRC one of the most influential scholars, al-Ghazali, suggested that the purpose of Islamic law is to protect the 5 components of well-being: religion, life, intellect, offspring and property.

In this context, even the understanding of "religion" is more universal than you might expect. Islamic theology is very different from Christianity in that you don't have to follow Muhammad's revelations to be a "muslim", i.e. submit to God. According to Islamic scholarship, God created humanity with an innate disposition to believe in him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitra Apparently, anyone who doesn't reject the stirrings in one's own soul to worship God and uphold justice is a true believer and will be rewarded. There is a medieval novel that spells out the consequences of this understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayy_ibn_Yaqdhan

Neither in the words of the Quran nor in traditional scholarship does Islam have anything to do with a reactionary preservation of Arab culture as attempted by the Wahhabists.

I get what you're saying. Salafism was first preoccupied with bringing Muslims back to monotheism. All sorts of superstitious worship had blended with Islam. And while I share your distaste for Saudi culture, I have to admit that what they've created is extremely stable and has made Saudi Arabia a sort of beacon for Islam. Though Salafism may not be mainstream (I don't really know how to assess that), it's influence is widely felt. Don't you agree?

Wahhabists pretty much argue for a return to the first 3 generations after Muhammad's time. This would mean they reject every intellectual achievement of medieval science and philosophy.

I don't know if I'd characterize Saudi Arabia as stable. They made a deal with Western powers and will remain very wealthy as long as there is demand for their oil. There used to be similar states in Latin America, and those are no longer wealthy.

They are a "beacon" in the sense that thanks to their deal, they took over Mecca, and corrupted Islam all over the world. The new inquisitorial face of Islam is, to a great extent, their fault.

I gather they're not your favorite version of Islam. :razz:

So who were you talking about when you spoke of conservative Muslims?

See the four Sunni madhhabs: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali. I'm most familiar with the Hanafi school. I gather the others are stricter.

Yes. Saudi Arabia is Hanbali.

They were Hanbali even before they were taken over by the Wahhabi state. There are still Hanbalis outside Saudi Arabia who are not Salafi. The traditional madhhabs don't get along with Salafis. Try googling Sunni vs Salafi.

What worries me is this: An attack on a freethinker such as Salman Rushdie is a) possible and b) that too in the US of A. Had this happened in Iran or Indonesia, it would've made complete sense. The fatwa (death sentence) was issued in Iran and the near-execution took place in the USA.

Had this happened in Iran or Indonesia, it would've made complete sense. — Agent Smith

Why in Indonesia? It is true they are Muslims, but they are not extremists as much as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Why in Indonesia? It is true they are Muslims, but they are not extremists as much as Saudi Arabia or Iran. — javi2541997

Indonesia because it's the world's largest Muslim nation. It hasn't issued fatwas (yet) but if memory serves some Indonesians did go on record that they would kill for Islam.

But having the world's largest Muslim nation is not related to be extremist. It is a recent but good democracy: Since 1999, Indonesia has had a multi-party system. In all legislative elections since the fall of the New Order, no political party has managed to win an overall majority of seats. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), which secured the most votes in the 2019 elections, is the party of the incumbent president, Joko Widodo. Other notable parties include the Party of the Functional Groups (Golkar), the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), the Democratic Party, and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS).

They are so far from feudal states such as Afghanistan or Iran

I stand corrected then!

You don't get to decide what other people consider harmful.

Yes, obviously. Islam is committed to human flourishing. They should change their tradition so that it's nicer to me. — absoluteaspiration

Why are to telling me that?

Yes. When people behave in ways that one thinks are anti-social, uncivilized, or immoral, one must condemn it. One must disavow the unacceptable action. — Bitter Crank

And then they call the police on you and you're the one who gets into trouble.

From time to time, we witness acts that are "bad", whether that's stabbing authors or shooting the convenience store clerk; stealing catalytic converters or defrauding the Medicare program; trying to overthrow the election or seize the neighboring country. We can't be indifferent. We need to be clear to ourselves (and to whoever is in earshot) that we condemn wrongdoing.

But with a simplistic approach like that, you condone the hostility with which it all started. "It's okay to be hostile, it's just not okay for others to return in kind."