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 fatwa was from a Shia. 15% of Muslims are Shia, the rest are Sunni. I don't know if Sunnis would feel the need to address a Shia issue. Sunni leaders don't have any authority over Shias.

with India remaining quiet. — Hanover

India has been divided into an Islamic part and another part. The Islamic part is Pakistan, and more recently the independent Bangla Desh. What we call today India is not Islamic. So their silence is not the silence of a Muslim country.

Your post is otherwise impeccable, save for the Shia-Sunni issue of fatwa as pointed out by Tate.

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

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.

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. .

No, you just try to divert with by chastising me for covert bigotry, but at best you've presented a Tu quoque ( — Hanover

It 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.

The fatwa was from a Shia. 15% of Muslims are Shia, the rest are Sunni. I don't know if Sunnis would feel the need to address a Shia issue. Sunni leaders don't have any authority over Shias. — Tate

:up:

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. — Hanover

You added this to your post after I had already responded.

As 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

with a disambiguation needed for the term "Muslim" needed by me. — Hanover

W0t?

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

If the the OP had read "mainstream Shia Muslim theology" I would have laughed.

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. — Hanover

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.

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

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.

I suggested I would laugh at a "Shia mainstream" because it's like asking about a Coptic Christian mainstream. It's a niche religious position, so the concept of a "mainstream" version of a niche faction is laughable. You originally asked if the stabbing was consistent with "mainstream Muslim theology", which is not Shia theology. You're begging the question now. By the way, I love Clarky but I think he's overreacting a bit.

Except I'm not. — Hanover

Explaining why you feel entitled to express bigoted beliefs is not the same as not expressing them.

You and I are not getting anywhere and won't. I'm going to leave it at that.

I don't have much understanding of differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims. I won't draw any analogies.

The Catholic Church has, had, or used to have something called the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" -- banned books. In recent times no one has been burned at the stake for either writing or reading a forbidden book. In the past, at various times, Christians resorted to grotesque executions for violations of doctrine. William Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. What a monster! John Wycliffe was executed in 1384. Wycliffe also translated at least part o the NT into Middle English, and questioned some core Catholic theology. He was so heinous that years later his corpse was dug up and burned at the stake.

No -- Rome's or Canterbury's excesses neither justify nor excuse Tehran's pontificating mullahs. A plague on all their houses!

Most Christian churches have, through reformation, incremental change, an embrace of secular ideas (the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and science) lost a lot of their former triumphal absolutism--all to the good. There are some outstanding exceptions, of course.

Islam has not had a reformation (so I am told). There seems to be a substantial core of absolutism remaining. The Taliban demonstrates this, as does the malignant Islamic State and various spin-offs.

So we have a medieval ayatollah issuing death warrants for authors who they think ought to be punished by death. Then we have young Moslems cultivating the same medieval thinking on line, unto the heathen state of New Jersey.

All religions which presume to hold the final and absolute truth are a mortal danger.

I love Clarky — Noble Dust

Aw, shucks.

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

I think there is a problem with the question, namely that there is no such thing as mainstream Muslim theology. The holy texts and traditions of Islam have been used both to condemn and to support various acts of violence, and these interpretations are conditioned by politics and history. The same thing happened with Christianity (and still does to some extent).

But unlike Christianity, there is no credible central Islamic authority.

The reactions from governments and religious leaders in Islamic countries will be interesting in the context of the various Islamic civil wars, but I personally don't see the point in looking at theology.

But if you're talking about Iranian religious clerics in particular, I'd expect support for the attack. On the other hand, Shia Islamists Hezbollah have so far said something along the lines of "no comment".

Emoji affirmed.

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.

No -- Rome's or Canterbury's excesses neither justify nor excuse Tehran's pontificating mullahs. A plague on all their houses! — Bitter Crank

:100:

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..

No problem. I know you're coming from a good place here. Rushdie getting stabbed is upsetting to anyone with a moral center and a pulse. I feel it too. But Islam is a dizzyingly complex religion, so I felt the need to push back and add a few comments.

But unlike Christianity, there is no credible central Islamic authority. — Jamal

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.

There is no central authority to which condemnation, approval, or appeal can be addressed.

IF 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.

TRUE BELIEVERS of any stripe are more likely to follow available "hard lines" than people for whom belief does not dominate their thinking or their life. There are Christian fascist and white nationalist TRUE BELIEVERS who are quite capable of carrying out violence against fellow Americans who are not displaying sufficient loyalty to the Prez, for example. There are TRUE BELIEVERS in Islamic countries who have no qualms about blowing up a bomb in a market to to kill Shias or Sunnis.

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.