>>A "man" is what is socially recognized as a man. A "woman" is what is socially recognized as a woman. Since there is no overwhelming social consensus, it's up to us to argue one into existence. — Baden

It's up to the community to use a term and from there its meaning can be derived from those seeking definitions.

Community Right defines woman based upon her sexual organs and it is considered an absurdity to use it otherwise.

Community Left defines woman based upon the personal identification of the person and considers misapplication of the term an insult.

Whether Rights ought talk Leftish is a political and moral question, but both are linguistically valid languages.

I'm not saying they don't. I just don't think animal behaviour has anything to do with gender. — Michael

I get that animal sociology is less complex than human sociology, but it is accurate to relate animal behavior to their social function. I would also grant some amount of free will to an animal.

So, to my goats, the billy goat rears its head and swings it down on the other male goats to show his dominance and to declare the female goats for himself. That is no doubt a product of his genetics, but to some extent I would assume the goat could decide whether to be a combative goat or a nice goat, meaning it's not all pre-determined.

How are you using gender here?

Animals don't have genders, just biological sexes. — Michael

Why can't there be sociological functions assignable to biological sex within a non-human animal? Billy goat behavior is different from nanny goat behavior, which is what I assume you mean by "gender."

Again, I'm agreeing generally with the basic notion of human gender fluidity based upon the human will being more intentional and less driven by naturalistic forces than animals, with the final focus of the question being where is there an actual natural/genetic barrier to fluidity. That is, how much are we our will versus how much are we determined by our genetics (which includes gender).

But to argue that even animals don't behave in predictably natural ways seems a stretch that doesn't need to be made.

That's a very general law, and sufficient to action. What I find odd is the specificity. — Banno

Title 9 is a well known law, arising often in the context of college athletics, which is obviously a very large US interest. For many years men dominated the sports scene, but Title 9 dictated equal play for women., which required equal numbers of teams and sports scholarships.

Sports is big business (and it affects college admissions in many ways), so I think limiting your considerations to recreational types activities doesn't fully appreciate the significance of the disruptions caused by these trans issues.

I'll agree that the US sports culture, especially as it interplays with academia, is dysfunctional, but that's the reality and why this matters in other ways.

You needed a law for that? — Banno

Yes. For the Australian counterpart, see: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation

We even have laws against murder and rape, despite the obviousness of the need. That's how lands governed by laws typically work, as opposed to just wise people handing down their latest views of what justice dictates.

Not an entirely responsive post to what I said, but nice chat.

Tough shit for sport. their organisation is based on a parochial patriarchic attitude towards people. — Banno

No doubt complaints arise from those quarters, where the objections are simply that they don't want a status quo disrupted, but an equal argument is made from the other side, which is that athletics serves a useful social and emotional function and should be as equally distributed as possible. It's for that reason that there is US law requiring equal access to sports opportunities at the college level (Title 9 rules) for men and women.

These things were pretty reliably categorised according to biological sex. Now that's not such a good proxy. So why not base the categorisation on what is actually significant - Fast twitch muscle fibre, testosterone during puberty and whatever.... — Banno

In short, because you would be eliminating CIS women from the sports marketplace. Those measurements you reference do correlate generally to biological sex, which is why they have served historically as a proxy for distinguishing ability.

That's the complaint. If you allow entry of MtF athletes on traditionally CIS female sports teams, the CIS women lose their spots.

The consequences are minimal at the recreational level because the CIS girls and women could find a team to compete on at their level, but at the collegiate and professional level, those opportunities would be eliminated. It's just simple math. If you increase the competitors in the current CIS division to include trans competitors, you will lose CIS competitors, especially considering there is evidence that trans athletes are athletically superior to CIS competitors

Western" morality is ambiguous phrasing. Free speech was not considered a right in the West until enlightenment thinkers like Locke. A lot of these enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were inspired by their idea of "Turkish society", where they believed multiple religions lived and worked side by side. That was an exaggeration, but not incorrect as a comparative statement vis a vis Europe at the time. — absoluteaspiration

Sure, it's a broad based theory that requires some tinkering, but I'm not in agreement that the power of speech and its special status can only be traced to the Enlightenment.

The guy you banned spent some time explaining how fragmented Islam is. Then you mentioned "that community.". I see now that I was supposed to read that as the global Muslim community, which the guy you banned said doesn't really exist, which is true. — Tate

No, now I see my initial assumption of the bad faith basis of your question was correct. You weren't confused, and I regret attempting to clarify. I didn't say the entire Muslim community in my last post. I explained it was the entire community at first, clarified to be Shiah, then opened by others back to the community. I contextualuzed what occurred, which is what I asked you do the first time, but such wasn't your desire.

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 I think that's the gist of this whole thing, which is that the West holds speech as holy, both in the right to offend and duty to protect. It's primary. We perceive it fatally wrong to be told we can't express our wrongness and we feel a piwerful imperative to speak against injustice.

So that's what makes this thing stick in my craw. Rushdie was being told to shut up, and when he was physically attacked for it, the speech reaction from those best positioned to be heard didn't scream.

It's a realization of what free speech means to Western morality. An interesting revelation for me, at least.

Back to my theological musings now. I don't know enough about the Koran for a comparative analysis, but thematic to the OT is the power to create the universe from speech acts alone and for humans to challenge the authority of God, offering foundational support for where this free speech protection emphasis distinction arises.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it's an interesting thesis.

From the OP:

I Googled looking for the Muslim reaction to the attack and found nothing in the way of Muslim leadership condemning it. — Hanover

You used the word "community". I still don't know what community you mean. In the US? The global community? Iran? Shiites? — Tate

The OP was clearly about the Muslim reaction, later focused to Shias, then some reopening it to Sunnis as well. I'm confused why you're confused. This whole conversation has been about my difficultly understanding why the reaction has been difficult to decipher.

That's why I responded to you as I did. Where was all this ground lost and then needing re-plowed?

Beats me. Maybe that clarifies?

That's why it's important for religious leaders to speak up. It's their job to go full MLK Jr and shout "Let freedom ring!" — Tate

7

So you asked what I meant earlier and I didn't respond because it was clear to me you did, and this is the point I was making. Is there a duty to speak truth to power, damn the consequences?

suppose if you want to say that the essential characteristic of being a man is identifying as a man then it's a kind of essentialism, but I was thinking of essentialism as involving a little more than that when I asserted my rejection of it. — Michael

OK, but I was thinking you were arguing fluidity of meaning based upon usage, which I would subscribe closer to, but I guess I don't know what you mean when you reject essentialism. It seems you're just arguing that your usage is more consistent with common progressive morality and is therefore preferred, but that makes it prescriptive and essentialist, which is the failing of those whose definition you reject.

I've missed something?

applies to being a man (and woman). I don't know off the top of my head what other things are like this. Maybe being a supporter of Manchester United? — Michael

So in terms of meaning being use, I rely upon what usage to know if you're a man? That you tell me you are? Is that the only public usage manifestation?

That strikes me as essentialism. To be a man, it is essential that one believe they are and then say they are.

A usage theory requires variability of characteristics and a public meaning, not just an internal state.

Is this peculiar to internal states, or does it apply to cups too?

I don’t think so. I can’t think of any such characteristics in my case. I just am a man. — Michael

I also deny essentialism, but I don't think that amounts to an inability to itemize characteristics of a term. That a term's meaning is derived from use would entail that usage can be described and attributed to the term. So, if "cup" is used in Instances 1 through 20 to mean an object with descriptors A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, we're not required to say any particular descriptor is essential, but we can say there must be some sharing of descriptors for the object to be of the same sort.

That is, my cup might be A, C, D and yours B, F, G, neither sharing the essence, but both being delimited to certain aspects. If not, terms would be devoid of meaning.

Using transsexualism just creates a loaded example to deal with, but I don't follow how just from a linguistic theory it can be alleged by you that you are just a man without suggestion a definition can be attached to that. That is, there is something characteristically a man about you, which might not be the same characteristic I have that makes me a man, but some characteristic must be placing you in the man category.

[

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

Is condemnation a moral imperative?

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

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

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.

Maybe true but you tell better jokes. — praxis

Meh.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Finally,I'm not even sure if Rushdies attacker was a shia or just an extremist acting on his own steam? Why an inquisition before the facts are in? — Adamski

His Facebook post indicated he was a Shia Muslim supportive of the Ayatollah, also supportive the Iranian government. https://www.livemint.com/news/world/who-is-salman-rushdie-attacker-hadi-matar-what-we-know-so-far-11660372333595.html

Must be exhausting. — Tate

I know, right?

It's like herding cats with you guys.

I get we hate Trump, racists, Republicans, and probably all sorts of other things, like climate change deniers, Covid deniers, US Middle East policy, and I could go on and on, but let's focus on the topic at hand.

If Trump, Mother Theresa, Charles Manson, and Abraham Lincoln all declared "stabbing out eyes ought be publicly condemned," they'd all be equally correct.

Such is correct whether you trust them or not

Such is the basis behind the ad hom fallacy.

And what I see more so unfortunately is an attempt to derail the thread into one over hypocrisy and strained attempts at moral equivalency as opposed to better understanding why a religious leader would send marching orders to murder an author and there would be muted reaction from other religious leaders.

I do think we made some headway into understanding why.

The point being that even should we conclude the US (or whoever) is just like the Ayatollah, that offers zero excuse for the decree to have Rushdie murdered. If the OP were meant just to itemize the good and bad acts of various political and religious entities so the we could announce a winner, I guess I could have done that, but such wasn't the goal.

And I'm really not coming after you so much for this, but just responding to you from how another poster who I generally ignore has responded in the hopes of better explaining my position.

Thanks for this post and welcome to the forum.

Islam remains a very minority religion where I live, and it's hard to get my finger on the pulse of that part of my/our community, especially with the silence in the press on what the general reaction was.

I would expect the problem to be isolated to extremists, but what some have reported here is that the defamation of Muslim founders is considered by all Muslims to be a great affront to Islam that could understandably result in a violent response, and "extremists" mean Shia adherents, which appears to be over a hundred million people.

Do you agree with these assessments?

I know I've set things out here very starkly, and it's not to be provocative, but it's really to push for an answer because you might be in the best position to know about this.

Because if you point out that only a few progressive Muslims can manage to strongly condemn the attack, then what does this tell us about the guy who runs the Pakistani restaurant down the street? If we ask, he might tell us that Rushdie should have been killed a long time ago. Now what?

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

It's hard to conclude anything from some anecdotal information, which is why I was looking for some type of statement from leadership. We've made assumptions as to what polling data might show, but I think the conclusion you must draw prior to having supporting data is that we're not in a position to conclude anything.

I think the aim of the OP is trying to deal with how to decipher silence.

I do think most people are pragmatists at a most basic level, meaning their concerns deal with paying their bills, taking care of their families, and doing their day to day activities. If you ask a staunch Republican what he thinks ought be done about this or that, you might get all sorts of aggressive talk that you don't agree with, but come Monday, he's back at work just doing his job. So, I'd agree with the basic statement that most people are not poised to do something crazy, but I also see too much leeway given by some people when crazy people do crazy things.

Funny. It’s also funny that on the day before the Salman attack a man attacked the FBI armed with an assault rifle. This man was also at the January 6th assault on the Capital.

Many Trumpists openly advocate for the establishment of a Christian theocracy in the US. — praxis

I don't follow the relevance of these references. Even if a moral equivalency could be concluded (and I think the distinctions might be significant enough that it can't be (as the basis for the attacks on the FBI is an argument of abuse of power in trying to seize illegally stored documents from the former President), what difference would it make to prove we've got just as bad Christians actors as we do Muslim actors? I don't think anyone has made the argument that one group is superior to the other. The argument has been that the Rushdie attack was evil and that the response inappropriate (by being either overly celebratory or muted). Whether that has happened in other places by other groups means very little to this conversation. If there are those attacking the FBI with assault rifles and those attacks are being hailed as justified, then I think we'd all agree that is wrong, but not that it should offer an excuse for others to behave terribly.

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.

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.

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.

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.."

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

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.

There are a billion or so muslims in the world— and this was an act of one. — Xtrix

Except that his actions were based on an official decree by the highest leader in his religion. He wasn't just some nut job who was scribbling manifestos and getting messages from his dog.

Shias comprise a small percentage of Muslims but represent a huge number of people. I'm not trying to impose his actions upon every Muslim, but I also think it's a stretch to claim he's just one guy who happened to be Muslim and this act wasn't consistent with many to believe being Muslim requires of them.

But I'm in agreement that Islam is not inherently evil. People, as moral agents, not religions, get categorized as good or bad. I trust that anyone of us here who for whatever reason became Muslim would find a way to do it consistent with our morality.

That said, leadership matters and how they react and steer the ship can have profound consequences. And do note that my concerns rest in how leadership has responded and how they've resorted to their theology in responding, or not responding