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

Say there's an odd Jewish sect that does something bizarre. How would global Judaism respond? American Judaism? — Tate

There are many examples of diversions by insular groups that have been criticized within, and the chasm between Hasidic orthodoxy and liberal reform Jews is deep and wide. These things aren't interesting outside the religion because most don't really care if some in the Lubavitcher sect held the late Menacham Schneerson the messiah and others rejected it.

But despite these differences, there is an unbending view that a Jew of any stripe is a Jew. As they say, Hitler saw no distinctions.

But, Jewish terrorist groups need to be condemned, and if they aren't, the leaders need to explain why. I'm not trying to assert perfection here, just trying to decipher meaning from silence so I can figure out where they stand.

What is the view of Sunnis towards Shias? Do they reject entirely Shia Imam authority, or do they find them persuasive but just not binding?

My curiosity arises from the silence of Muslim condemnation, and the answers I've gotten here are: (1) it's a radical Shia thing that the Sunnis are so divorced from they see no reason to respond, and (2) the Sunni structure is so localized and non-hierarchical that they lack the means to present an official comprehensive response.

As to #1, I leave the PR to them, but that seems a dangerous reaction because they must obviously know they are being grouped with the Shias, The bright line clarification regarding this issue of their distinction is made perfectly clear here, but, like I said, it's been terribly hard to find this argument you've made researching the web.

#2, again, limited personal knowledge here, but my wife works for the school system here and has had interaction with what seems fairly progressive Muslim community centers that offer social service outreach to recent immigrants, offering direction for schooling, housing, healthcare, etc. My point being that there is a high level of education, sophistication, and organization at some level, which points to leadership that has not spoken out.

I'm not trying to poke holes in the argument that Muslims share in non-Muslim horror over the event, but I'm trying to get this. There is a tendency among beleaguered minorities to never criticize one another publicly. It's an ill fated strategy based upon strength in numbers, but it predictably destroys credibility to the entire group. Looking for the generous read, maybe that?

That is an important feature. Theological interpretation is apparently quite decentralized and local. There's no pope, no Vatican, no infrastructure of command and control. — Bitter Crank

It's the same really of every religion, with the Baptists having their authority, the Catholics theirs, the Mormons, and then the unaffiliated churches with no hierarchy at all. Each Hadidic sect has their own head rabbi, etc.

But clearly some listen to the Ayatollah. Not sure of his scope of influence, but he's a Godfather enough that if he puts a hit on you, you lay low..

you polled 10,000 Moslems from various countries, my guess is that a majority would not be in favor of executions for book writing. There would be a minority (10%? 20%? 30%?) who would approve, and they would approve for various reasons. — Bitter Crank

I hope so. Those objectors get little press. And by press, I mean throughout, not just FoxNews.

I personally don't see the point in looking at theology. — Jamal

That's fair to the extent we see Muslims as a political group, which can be done with any religion, but there are underlying belief systems that do hold things together generally within these groups.

The article I located condemning the act referenced the theology, but, again, I realize that too could be a political move.

There could be, and I expect somewhere there is, a well schooled Muslim who could break the I'm sure many sects of Islam to where I could follow this.

If the answer is simply that Islam does not permit such fatwas but through corrupt leadership the ignorant masses were led to believe such in order to take a swipe at the West, that have done well to respond, but I'm still sorting out the politics from the theology..

Thanks for that post.

If you guys need me to stand from a mountain top and proclaim my ignorance of Islam outside a very limited academic context I will. but do read my posts from that perspective, that I'm looking for relief from the narrative that a dude gets his eye stabbed out and there is large spread acceptance of the act.

I've changed my mind. I think you are engaging in religious bigotry. Also hypocrisy. If you were talking about black people, women, or gay people, I don't think your abusive diatribe would be allowed on the forum. I don't think you would allow a discussion like that on the forum yourself. — T Clark

Except I'm not. A religious leader specifically decreed that Rushdie be murdered, a man went out to carry out his plan, the Guardian (not exactly a conservative bastion) reports celebratory and mited reaction, and I ask how widespread this ideology is and how attached to the ideology it is because I truly don't know.

Read all my posts. I'm looking for clear answers on what the ideology actually is. By exampke, the Old Testament talks about stoning. It's a legitimate question to ask (and it has been) whether Jews permit stoning.

The answer is they don't, but it's a reasonable question based upon the text and the fact that the OT is held as Truth.

the the OP had read "mainstream Shia Muslim theology" I would have laughed. — Noble Dust

You emoji affirmed @Tate's distinction between the ideologies of the Sunni and Shia, so now you laugh at it, as if implying the Shia mainstream position isn't decipherable, or whatever I'm to decipher from your laughter.

I'm really just asking a question here is all regardless of whatever you're trying to read in. A man stabs someone in the eye for disrespecting his religion, based upon his leadership's stance, and I want to know if his behavior is acceptable within his community, which is a subset of Muslims but still a large number.

What prompted this discussion from me was this article from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/13/salman-rushdie-attack-prompts-muted-reaction-in-india-and-pakistan

And this too from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/13/salman-rushdie-attack-iranians-react-with-mixture-of-praise-and-concern

Sunni's are the vast majority, so the answer to question of whether the attack was consistent with mainstream Islam is no. — Noble Dust

Well I think that's clear from what I said, with a disambiguation needed for the term "Muslim" needed by me.

Should the OP have read "mainstream Shia Muslim theology," is your response "yes" to those 154 to 200 million adherents?

My question:

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology? — Hanover

Is the final answer: Yes to Shia Muslims, no to Sunni Muslims?

Or is there another distinction I've missed with my Western eyes?

you say, for most people the events were not performed for religious reasons, but some white nationalists I have read about participated with explicitly religious motivation. — T Clark

There are always radicals, but my concern is official group doctrine. It does seem the Sunnis may separate themselves from the Shia here, leaving their problem not a moral one, but a PR one in that the distinction in position is not known by many.

Regardless, there are between 154 to 200 million Shia in the world.

"An overwhelming majority of Muslims are Sunnis, while an estimated 10-13% are Shias. This report estimates that there are between 154 million and 200 million Shia Muslims in the world today." https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/#:~:text=or%20more%20Muslim.-,Sunni%20and%20Shia%20Populations,Muslims%20in%20the%20world%20today.

I do find great comfort in this. I didn't cease looking for an answer to my question.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/islam-does-not-permit-violence-aimplb-member-8088729/lite/

A clear Sunni response.

was not my intention to imply your post is bigoted any more than yours implied that Islam is a violent religion. I was implying that your example is misguided. Yours is generally a voice for moderation but I think you were immoderate here. — T Clark

And I think you're wrong. My voice is moderate. A man was stabbed in the eye for a work of fiction, carrying out his wishes in the name of religion, and I want to know the official position of the Muslim community. Point me in the direction of the article you rely upon for that position.

The Catholic Church engaged in horrible, systemic sexual abuse, but their official position, for what it's worth, is condemnation.

I can deal with failing to meet a standard far better than having a failed standard. I'm just asking what that standard is.

don't know if Sunnis would feel the need to address a Shia issue. Sunni leaders don't have any authority over Shias. — Tate

You've drawn a distinction here between the reactions of the Sunni and Shia but I can't find support for that anywhere. Do you have cites?

I do know that the fatwa was issued well after general Muslim outrage began, but I can't find support that the Sunnis disagreed with it. What I did find was that the Ayatollah presented the fatwa in a manner to gain support from the Sunni population:

"To win back the interest in and support for the Islamic Revolution among the 90% of the population of the Muslim world that was Sunni, rather than Shia like Khomeini. The Iran–Iraq War had also alienated Sunni, who not only were offended by its bloodshed, but tended to favour Iran's Sunni-led opponent, Iraq. At least one observer speculated that Khomeini's choice of the issue of disrespect for the Prophet Muhammad was a particularly shrewd tactic, as Sunni were inclined to suspect Shia of being more interested in the Imams Ali and Husayn ibn Ali than in the Prophet.[58]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy#:~:text=On%2014%20February%201989%2C%20Ayatollah,that%20persisted%20for%20many%20years.

Was participation by white Christian nationalists in the events on January 6 in Washington DC consistent with mainstream Christian theology?

As is common in situations like this, the question asked is more telling than the answer. — T Clark

No, you just try to divert by chastising me for covert bigotry, but at best you've presented a tu quoque fallacy. If i treat Christians with kid gloves but am critical of Muslims, I'm a hypocrite at worst, but my statements are not deemed wrong

Regardless, the 1/6 events were not carried out in the name of religion, but were the result of a political ideology. I do condemn those in the Republican party who have either supported those acts or claimed them part of their ideology. .

I place this in the religion category for the purpose of posing this as a theology question, less so a political one, but obviously of political consequence. .

I Googled looking for the Muslim reaction to the attack and found nothing in the way of Muslim leadership condemning it. The response from Iran and radicalized Muslim governments was celebratory, with India remaining quiet.

I am aware of two critical factors at play here in the Muslim world: (1) the official fatwa from the Ayatollah Khomeini that serves as a decree to kill Rushdie, and (2) fear of reprisal throughout the Muslim world should they condem the attack.

I candidly do not know what the primary driver of the silence from Imams in the West is. Are they in agreement with the attack as justified per their leadership, or do they hold their tongues in painful silence at this injustice? While the latter would be my hope, it's hardly befitting leadership from what ought be a person of integrity over self-preservation.

If it's the former (i.e #1), what restraint in civilized society should one have in discussing the virtue of Islam if its official contemporary 2022 doctrine is the murder of those who write books critical of its historical figures?

My views tend toward the progressive in acceptance of diversity, with a particular openess toward religious diversity, but I can't align in any way with an organization that officially advocates and celebrates the murder of simple detractors.

But back to the theological question, anyone find sources of mainstream. Imam condemnation of the attack or fatwa?

The Chinese are building lots of nuclear power plants, which everyone should be doing. If Europe actually does wean itself off Russian oil and gas, that would help. — Tate

The solution remains more political than scientific. Most of Europe is aligned, but not so much the US, and surely not beyond the West.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shelling-ukraine-nuclear-plant-raising-144759494.html

Sad though to see how clear it was 37 odd years ago, and how very little has been done in that time. — unenlightened

What he says needs to be done can happen only through universal cooperation, which is the panacea that will cure far more imminent threats than global warming.

Given that we'll not get China to allow Taiwan self determination, much less get it to abandon thoughts of mining and using its own coal, perhaps we should reconsider our paltry efforts of trying to do the right thing. Having the moral higher-ground is of what value if our efforts don't ultimately matter?

I found this a helpful broad summary of many of the issues in this thread. Carl Sagan from 1985 when things were slightly less political.

The cause of global warming is the sun obviously, with the input into the atmosphere being part of the equation and the amount unable to exit as the result of it being trapped in gasses caused by fossil fuel burning another.

So, of course, if sun input changes, we could see another ice age, and equally of course, if we increase heat capturing gasses into the environment, we'll increase global temperatures.

He acknowledges humans have been impacting global temperatures for thousands of years. My assumption is that all plant life does to some extent as well.

Pay attention to his solution, which I find interesting as it acknowledges an almost impossibility of universal political agreement. That is, it's not clear that complete elimination of green house gasses from the West will do anything without the same by China and Russia. You can't dam half a river.

If you're already of the opinion that science fully constrains our theories about minds then you're not in a position to answer my enquiry. — Isaac

I'm not of that opinion.

In any event, I disagree that you can't debate varying epistemological theories just because you already have one you rely upon. That is, the fact that I use science to answer certain questions doesn't mean I'm closed minded to considering other epistemological methods.

So, make your argument for why you believe in mind reading and establish how your method of knowing that is consistent with how you know other things, and if it's not, why such is a special class deserving of special rules.

The person suggesting minds can do something (mind-read) which is denied by college science is a crackpot. A lunatic, not to be taken seriously. A woo-merchant. — Isaac

This just isn't accurate, as if my denial of mind reading is the result of indoctrination I've been unable to rise above as you have. I deny it because I've never seen it done nor seen a study of it being done nor been made aware of a reliable account of when it's been done.

If you're going to argue in support of the paranormal, bigfoot, or the elusive white penguin, you need evidence. Your psychological evaluation that I'm just stubbornly committed to the status quo isn't evidence of anything, even if it were true.

And it's not like there isn't extensive literature attempting to prove the paranormal that I'm unaware of. I am very much aware of it, and it's extremely unpersuasive.

The thing I'll most remember about MAYAEL is that I would never have heard of him had he not been banned.

I did mean that, I was just wondering why not. — Isaac

We have five senses, and unless you reduce your communication to where it can be sensed by one of my senses, I won't be able to perceive it. Unless your behavior is visible, audible, tangible, tasteable, or smellable, how am I supposed to know it happened? If you were hungry and that emitted electrical activity from your brain into my brain, then I could read your mind, but that would require my having the sense to read electrical brain activity, which, alas, I don't.

I was told once (although I don't feel like looking it up), that they determined that pigeons were able to find their way back home due to magnetic material they found in their brain that acted as a compass. By putting a magnet on the pigeons head, they could disorient the pigeon. So, it is possible that other organisms have all sorts of unusual ways of sensing external activity, but that still comes down to following the laws of physics.

But you know this, so what is the real question here? Are you asking why we're confined to the laws of physics? That sounds like a question of why is the world like it is. I guess it just got made that way. If you are denying it actually has been made that way, then you'll need to show some evidence that you can read minds. So, let us begin. What am I thinking about?

Wrong. I was thinking about twice baked potatoes with cheese.

I do share your sentiment though that I too can read my wife's mind. She wants me to take out the garbage. I can just feel it.

The lyric that most changed my life was "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?" As stupid as it sounds, that lyric would go through my mind every day when I worked a job I had mastered and was successful at, but there was no challenge. I had a leading role in a cage, but needed the war.

Don't we? When I feel I know what someone else is thinking, maybe I'm reading their mind. Why not? — Isaac

Sure, we know what people are thinking based upon their behaviors, and one such behavior is when they tell us. They may also use gestures, or they may reveal it from expressions. You may also know that someone is thinking about eating by watching them make a sandwich or perhaps they grab their car keys right at lunch time and make their way out of the house. All of that is basic behaviorism, but we don't equate the communicative behavior with the internal state.

That is, their mind experienced a desire to want to eat. That wanting to eat was a state of being and you didn't experience their state of being. Their mind remains to you a black box accessible to you only to the extent they manifest it in some sort of behavior. A person can mute or fake their behaviors, but just because I remain stoical doesn't mean I'm not suffering. The suffering is one thing, the exhibition of that suffering another.

So, when you say "mind reading" in normal discourse, people generally think of the paranormal or some sort of telepathy, as if the internal state streams from them to you. If you mean that, then no, I don't think you can mind read.