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.. — Hanover

I don't think it's that simple, because what's going on in Islamic countries is so varied and complicated. It's really not just, or even primarily, about Islam vs the West.

As to what Islam permits, opinions differ, and that's the point. There are widely differing interpretations, each of which has some support somewhere. The everyday beliefs and practices of most pious Muslims, as with most believers in any religion, are a mixture of peace, love, family values, and social conservatism.

But it might be the case that right now, in the present context, Islam is particularly resistant to progress and plagued by violence, and by violent theological interpretations. This is different from saying that Islam is intrinsically worse than other religions (more violent, more conservative, what have you). I say this not exactly to defend Islam (which in my opinion deserves a mixture of respect and contempt, as with all religions), but rather to defend the potential for change without the wholesale rejection of entrenched traditions. This is the only realistic way forward.

There was a time when Islam was a beacon of enlightenment, but even that was an expression of social and political realities rather than some true pure heart of Islam. And alas, that's not the world we live in today.

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

Credit where credit's due: don't forget about ISIS and al Qaeda.

You might see a fundamental difference: unlike the attack on Salman Rushdie, those Sunni Islamists are or were not led or motivated by any country's official doctrines and rulings. To the extent that this is the case, it's a reflection of Iran's particular history, in which it ended up with a radically reactionary government whose authority in the region rests largely on its continuing radical position. On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken the Sunni Islamists have been supported more or less covertly by various governments or other powerful groups, whose representatives have sometimes at the same time publicly expressed sympathy with their actions and views.

Sunni Islamists have been supported more or less covertly by various governments or other powerful groups, whose representatives have sometimes at the same time publicly expressed sympathy with their actions and views. — Jamal

Yes, exactly. Every government with a "Pan-Islamism" point of view supported those groups and their actions. We can check a lot of examples like Egypt with Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein as Prime Minister. Irak with Sadam Hussein and his "Baaz party" or Bashar al-Assad's family members controlling Syria since the 1970's.

Terrorism is always a political act. Religious organisations always have political aspirations. Thus the target of this attack is not the man himself, but the rest of the world.

One does not look for chapter and verse to justify or condemn the cover-up of paedophiia in the clergy it is obviously expedient to the organisation. The attack on Salman Rushdie is obviously advantageous to the power of any Islamic group. 'Don't mess with us, wimps!'

I believe the answer to the OP question lies in a careful reading of the Satanic Verses. It's a masterpiece of a novel, highly enjoyable for a non-Muslim reader, but from a Muslim perspective it pushes a lot of the 'wrong' buttons.

I read it while living in Pakistan. At some point an Afghan door keeper / cleaner found the book on my bed and wrote in persian over the first page: "Death to Rushdie and Thatcher". (Unfortunately I lost this copy since then) I asked him 'WTF?' and we went into a long discussion about it.

In summary, his beef was that the life of Mohammad was not an appropriate subject for a novel. At some point he asked: How would you feel if someone wrote a novel about Jesus? I answered that it has been done, many times over, and while the hardest integrists were typically angered by movies or novels about Jesus, most Christians consider that it's fair use of freedom of speech.

This is something general, not specific to my door keeper: one of the issues with the Satanic Verses is that it includes a non-authorized biography of Mohammad, his revelation, and the writing of the Quran.

The eponymous satanic verses are a part of that story. At some point Mohammad issued some verses saying that the three traditional goddesses of Mecca were in fact intermediaries between Allah and His creation. By giving some space for the old polytheist religion, Mohammad might have tried to make his new, radical monotheism more easily acceptable to the Meccans. A few days later, the Prophet rejected those verses, stating that they were inspired to him by the Devil. This is actually true, historically, but a matter of embarrassment for Muslims. The book's title is quite provocative, for a Muslim.

More deeply, while Christianity and its holy books have been subject to much interrogations and challenges from Voltaire onward, Islam has never explored its own origins critically. Books analysing the early history of Islam critically are all written by non-muslim westerners. The only admissable tone or style of writing about Mohammad in Islam is hagiography: it has to be the life of a saint, told reverentially by believers in his sainthood.

Anything departing from such hagiography is blasphemous, even if showing Mohammad in a positive light (as Rushdie does in the Satanic Verses), even if historically accurate.

In particular, the Quran is untouchable. It is supposed to be the direct writings of God. Yet Rushdie shows a conflictual, painful revelation process, where Mohammad goes through much physical and mental suffering and struggle, and where the politics of the city get to impact the holy book, albeit in a transient manner. It implies that the Quran has a human touch, even if divinely inspired, and thus introduces an element of doubt.

Another 'button' in the book is that it represents Ayatollah Khomeini as an instrument of the Devil. That would explain the fatwa.

In my atheist opinion, those who follow the Allah fable ride on the coattails of those who follow the Yahweh fable. The Mohamed fables were suggested as delivered by Gabriel after god and his squad got fed up with their first choice of 'chosen people.' The Yahweh followers used to call for the death penalty for all apostates or those who 'blasphemed' against their main character, way before Allah was invented.
Even the Assyrians would kill those who did not accept their pantheon of invented characters. This so-called fatwa is in fact, a very ancient edict.

We all know how easy it is to wind up clockwork extremists and set them toddling off towards their targeted victims. One of these dehumanised robots is bound to get through in the end.
This was just another maniac attack, probably totally organised within the head of the perpetrator alone. But yeah, based on his own conviction that he has been sanctioned to perform this act by his theistic dogma and those who preach/confirmed it in his own head. He probably believes he would be hailed as a moslem/muslim hero at the end of it all. He may be sadly correct but I certainly lay litlle responsibility on the shoulders of everyday shia or sunni, who are themselves victims of theism. I do blame the main authorities of their religion. Salman already won his battle a long time ago in my opinion.

The only hope for individual theists imo, as we move forward with enlightenment is to switch to a belief in something like pantheism or such like. The Yaweh/Christian followers need to admit that the bible is just a collection of ancient myths based on old Assyrian, Sumerian, Phonetician, Egyptian fables which were simply reviewed and updated for the new testament and the Jesus myth. They should also admit that if their god committed or sanctioned events such as ethnic cleansing or smiting guys that stumbled and dropped one end of the ark of the covenant or sending she bears to consume children for calling one of its prophets baldy etc, then their god always was a bit nuts. I would love to see all the imams and leaders of those who follow Allah, draw lots of pictures/illustrations of their main characters and all the main events in their stories including Mohamed's 'night flight to Venus.' but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Events like the stabbing of Salman in the name of Islam just makes the followers of Islam look like they are still playing catch up with the more enlightened. This foolish act looks desperate and will only make most people in the west become more and more anti-Islamic. Maybe that's exactly what some nefarious forces want. While we are all arguing about the tenets of Islam, the rich are siphoning off more and more resources, while a great number of people can hardly afford to eat and heat.

I think you are engaging in religious bigotry. — T Clark

I don't agree. An artist was stabbed in the face because of an official decree of a leading cleric of a major branch of a world religion. There's a lot of complexity and nuance beyond that but this cannot go unopposed and questions should be asked, so I applaud @Hanover for bringing the subject up even if I don't agree with the angle he came at it from. The angle I would take wouldn't focus excusively on Islam but use this event as an example of a wider problem--extreme religious fundamentalism, which is a stain that bleeds across different religions in different ways and is destructive in different ways. But getting back to the OP, I think it's absolutely right to expect loud condemnations from Muslim clerics worldwide.

I think it's absolutely right to expect loud condemnations from Muslim clerics worldwide. — Baden

Would be great if they did but as I suggested, I think there is as much chance of that as there is of each of them drawing their own rendition of mohamed and publishing all of them in an on-line gallery.

I'm not so pessimistic. But I think it's important because if an unwillingness to condemn is for relgious reasons, i.e. If some Islamic cleric believes a condemnation would put him in conflict with his religion then by defnition he's lending credence to the idea that the attack is consistent with his religion. No need to sugarcoat that.

Other reasons for lack of condemnation among some clerics could be, e.g.:

1) Political: There is no religious justification for the act but my condemnation would be unpopular with my flock.
2) Principled: I don't want to suggest an association between the act and (my version of) Islam when no such association can be made.
3) Personal: I dislike Rushdie and those who insult Islam.

Maybe more. Anyhow, it's absolutely justified in my opinion to examine official reactions to this one way or the other.

I hope you are correct but is there much evidence that theism has progressed in very significant ways in the past 2000 years ? Or is it only secular national and international law that has kept it in check? Religious authority is only tempered by fear of breaking laws that don't allow the incitement of violence or intolerance towards apostates. Orthodox Islam will still call for apostates to be put to death but I think Islamic countries are afraid of global economic sanctions so their religious fervour is tempered somewhat. Remember it was the past popes who were loudest when calling for holy war/crusades and extremists like the branch dividians (of waco texas fame), the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) described as an American hyper-Calvinist hate group, many evanhellical groups etc all seem to be thriving pretty well today. I suppose these groups do just deliver annoying 'bee stings' to the human race when viewed as a totality but too many bee stings can kill you. I think the secular world must in the final analysis remain willing to fight hard against religious extremism when all other alternative non-violent approaches have been tried and have failed.

Well, as it was Iran that issued the Fatwa, maybe look to Iran?

Praise, worry in Iran after Rushdie attack; government quiet

As recently as February 2017, Khamenei tersely answered this question posed to him: “Is the fatwa on the apostasy of the cursed liar Salman Rushdie still in effect? What is a Muslim’s duty in this regard?”

Khamenei responded: “The decree is as Imam Khomeini issued.”

many evanhellical groups etc all seem to be thriving pretty well today. I suppose these groups do just deliver annoying 'bee stings' to the human race when viewed as a totality but too many bee stings can kill you — universeness

E.g. About a third of Brazilians are now evangelical and this is partly why Bolsanaro still has such hardcore support even while threatening to ignore the results of the upcoming election, de facto threatening a coup.

I think the secular world must in the final analysis remain willing to fight hard against religious extremism when all other alternative non-violent approaches have been tried and have failed. — universeness

The problem is the situation is so nuanced. Religious extremism isn't standing in the middle of a field waiting to be lanced by the Knight of secularism. It's either concentrated in countries whose cultures the secular West has little or no influence over or chaotically distributed in secular countries among non-extremists who have no responsibility for it. And if we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious freedom. You can't entirely cure liberal democracies of religious fundamentalism without killing the patient along with the disease.

I did that and also saw lots of popular support in the press, which suggests broad public support.

Well, as it was Iran that issued the Fatwa, maybe look to Iran? — Michael

An interesting irony about 'look to Iran,' it has been ever thus, Iran/Iraq was Persia, Mesopotamia etc Parts of Iraq and Syria were Sumeria, Assyria, Babylon etc. You are correct but I think we have spent a great deal of historical effort 'looking at such places.' I so wish many more theists could see through the obvious manipulation of primal human fears which are so clearly evidenced by following the bread crumb trails from those places and those times to the Islamic and Christian myths peddled today as a way to control and direct masses of people. When are we going to reach a point when the majority of the human race stop looking towards such old dead ancient places and start looking towards the final frontier, space! Our future lies there, not in theistic tenets originally sourced in the primal fears and sociopolitical manipulations of the ancients. The guy who stabbed Salman is a Sumerian religious throwback imo, exact same thinking processes. Not exactly a progressive!

The problem is the situation is so nuanced. Religious extremism isn't standing in the middle of a field waiting to be lanced by the Knight of secularism. It's either concentrated in countries whose cultures the secular West has little or no influence over or chaotically distributed in secular countries among non-extremists who have no responsibility for it. And if we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious freedom. You can't entirely cure liberal democracies of religious fundamentalism without killing the patient along with the disease. — Baden

I accept what you type here in general but it's probably even more nuanced than you suggest.
I think there are many 'cowed secularists' around all concentrations of religious extremists, even when the extremists are powerful enough to claim their country is 'Christian' or 'Islamic. I wouldn't invoke the 'knight' image as I don't see such 'sir' / heraldic images as positive. I see them as aristocratic.
I am for the serfs, the workers, the peasants, the true soldiers of secularism. I think there are a lot of skeptical 'Islamists,' 'Christians' who only comply because they are too afraid not to. I would have probably been too scared to profess my atheism in the days of Giordano Bruno.
I do believe in religious freedom as I believe in free speech but I will still attack fascist ideologies whether secular based or religious based. I will also physically attack those involved, especially if they physically attack us! I think there is ample local resistance anywhere religious extremism exists. I just think it needs to be organised and supported in better ways than it is at present. Evangelicals Evanhellicals have made inroads in many places such as Brazil and parts of Africa because it's easy to dupe desperate people who are desperately poor. Education and economic balance is the only solution to that.

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? — Hanover

The blurb you found from a Sunni imam was nice, but Indian Sunni imams are just respected elders. Their opinions are valuable, but they don't render binding rulings. To find something like that in Sunni islam, I think you'd need something like Saudi Arabia's type of Islam where the government backs the dictates of a particular family of clerics.

One of the reasons for this shortage of authority is that Sunni islam sort of froze doctrinally around the 10th Century. There's no way to update policy. If the Prophet waged war (which he did), you can't really say that violence is prohibited.

Here's a thing on imams:

"What is an Imam?
For Sunni Muslims, an Imam is typically the name given to the leader of worship in a mosque. These Imams would lead worship services and prayers, as well as serve as leaders in the community. Sunni Imams also take on the role of providing religious guidance to those in need of it. The only requirement for Sunni Muslims to become Imams is to study the basic Islamic sciences.

"For Shia Muslims, on the other hand, the role of an Imam is much more exclusive. Imams in Shia Islam are the unerring leaders of the community, second only to the Prophet Muhammad. What’s more, unlike in Sunni Islam, an Imam is not something that Shia Muslims can just become. This is because they believe that only members and descendants of the Ahl al-Bayt, the family of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, can take on the role. In Twelver Shi'ism, which is the biggest branch of Shia Islam, there are only 12 Imams, the last of which is Imam Mahdi who they believe will return at the end of times.

"How is an Imam selected?
Again, the process of selecting an Imam differs depending on the sect of Islam. For Sunni Muslims, an Imam is chosen at the community level. This essentially means that the members of the Muslim community choose someone who they deem as wise to be an Imam. It is a requirement that all Imams have a good knowledge and understanding of the Quran. This includes being able to recite it correctly and eloquently.

"In some cases and communities, Imams are specifically trained and recruited for the role. However, in other, typically smaller, Muslim communities, Imams are simply selected from the pre-existing members of the community.

The supervision of Imams is also done at a community level, as there is no appointed governing body to do so. here

my bed and wrote in persian — Olivier5

You mean Farsi.

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?

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

What would be considered mainstream? There are a billion or so muslims in the world— and this was an act of one.

Lots has been written, especially by Sam Harris and others, about how Islam inherently encourages violence more than other religions. But it’s just not so simple. For a more complex analysis (in my view), I’d check out Scott Atran.

The angle I would take wouldn't focus excusively on Islam but use this event as an example of a wider problem--extreme religious fundamentalism, which is a stain that bleeds across different religions in different ways and is destructive in different ways. But getting back to the OP, I think it's absolutely right to expect loud condemnations from Muslim clerics worldwide. — Baden

1.

The government of Iran is an Islamic theocracy that includes elements of a presidential democracy, with the ultimate authority vested in an autocratic "Supreme Leader";[26] a position held by Ali Khamenei since Khomeini's death in 1989.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

2. Iran is a sovereign country.

3. Iran doesn't have a secular legal system the way Western secular countries typically do.

For a foreign country to interfere with a decision issued by the Iranian Supreme Leader would be a case of said foreign country interfering with Iran's internal affairs.

Iran effectively declared Rushdie to be an enemy of the state of Iran. As a sovereign country, it has the right to do that.


But the real issue is that secularists believe that Iran's fatwa was somehow frivolous. Leaking classified military documents and diplomatic cables is bad enough to consider someone an enemy of the state, but saying disrespectful things about a religious figure is somehow not. This is how secularists deny the autonomy of the religious.

There is a tendency among beleaguered minorities to never criticize one another publicly. — Hanover

It could be that, or it's simply that such criticism would in some cases amount to interfering with the internal affairs of another country.

Moreover, perhaps they don't think there is anything to criticize.

It's an ill fated strategy based upon strength in numbers, but it predictably destroys credibility to the entire group. — Hanover

You think they care whether you find them credible or not?

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

And if we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious freedom. — Baden

No. If we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious superficialism: "It's okay to be religious, you can be any religion you want, as long as you don't take it all that seriously."

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? — Hanover

Various aspects of Shia Islam are deeply offensive to Sunnis. There's widespread mistrust of Iran among Sunnis, because they fear that Iran is trying to help bring Shias to power. Violent conflicts between them erupt from time to time, with abuse leading to more abuse ad infinitum.

There are pockets of progressive Muslims, like the one you quoted, who want to move toward interfaith, but that can only happen in societies that have separation of church and state.

(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. — Hanover

I think it's both.

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

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.

But despite these differences, there is an unbending view that a Jew of any stripe is a Jew. — Hanover

Why should the same kind of reasoning apply to other religions?

Designating someone as a member of a particular religion is sometimes purely an artifact of secular religiology.
For example, the people who consider themselves Christians do not necessarily mutually recognize one another as such.

As they say, Hitler saw no distinctions.

He's hardly an authority on religious identity, is he.

But, Jewish terrorist groups need to be condemned, and if they aren't, the leaders need to explain why.

Why do they need to explain that? Can you explain? Who are you to impose on them that necessity?

I'm not trying to assert perfection here, just trying to decipher meaning from silence so I can figure out where they stand.

More importantly, where you stand.

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

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. — Hanover

And the guy who just attacked the FBI in Ohio wasn’t a nut job either. Does he represent mainstream conservatism? I don’t think so, despite the messaging coming from the top (and the media).

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. — Hanover

But he is just one guy. If he were Christian, or a Trump supporter, you could ask similar things — fine. I still wouldn’t say it’s mainstream.

I care much more about actions than intentions or beliefs. Although the latter are certainly important, if the former doesn’t represent a real crisis, I’d conclude that there isn’t much to discuss. What do I mean by “crisis”? Is not a man being stabbed on stage a crisis? Statistically, not really. If we see a general uptick in violent attacks, that’s one thing— I don’t see evidence for that yet.

Regardless, the messaging matters. That this was ultimately spurred from a political/religious leader is certainly a problem. I’m against calling for the death of writers — no question. I’m against the calling for the hanging of FBI agents as well. That someone out there eventually acts on this messaging only proves that it has a real effect, and should be doubly condemned. But I’m very reluctant to make claims about Islam or conservatism or Christianity on the basis of what one person tells their followers.

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 — Hanover

Agreed.

But, Jewish terrorist groups need to be condemned, and if they aren't, the leaders need to explain why — Hanover

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?

Islam was born out of a bloody conflict. The imprint of that is definitely on Islam, just as Jesus' pacifism is imprinted in Christianity.

What that means is that Christian clergymen would have to really strain to find a backing for violence out of the New Testament. In the same way, Muslims have to tip toe carefully around the Quran to condemn violence. The Prophet was a violent man.

Farsi means 'Persian' in Persian. To be precise, Afghans speak Dari, a sort of archaic Farsi.