If the Quran is supposed to be divinely inspired then the suggestion some of the text is the consequence of political considerations is blasphemous. That part seems relatively straightforward, if possibly alien/ridiculous to most Christians and atheists. — Benkei

If you were to burn the Dutch flag in public, what would be the consequences?
It's just a piece of cloth, isn't it?


IOW, it's not only some "primitive" or "violent" nations or religions who punish people, but Western democratic (" ") nations also punish (including with death) the transgression of certain rules.
The execution of these punishments is just a matter of practical means, not a difference in the motive for punishment.

If you were to burn the Dutch flag in public, what would be the consequences?
It's just a piece of cloth, isn't it? — baker

Nothing happens. It's not considered criminal behaviour.

Really?? That's strange. You Dutch.

Flag desecration is often a crime.

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

Independent exploration is criticism — Tom Storm

Name one instance where it's not like this. I can't think of any field of human knowledge and endeavor where "independent exploration" is not considered criticism.

I'm asking Muslims in the West a very basic question: Will we remain spiritually infantile, caving to cultural pressures to clam up and conform, or will we mature into full-fledged citizens, defending the very pluralism that allows us to be in this part of the world in the first place? My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?

- Irshad Manji

Oh, the political correctness!

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlagschennis#:~:text=Vlagschennis%20is%20het%20verbranden%2C%20verminken,de%20nationale%20vlag%20strafbaar%20stellen.

The Dutch version explains it's neither a crime in the Netherlands nor Belgium.

Name one instance where it's not like this. — baker

Literature.

Oh, the political correctness! — baker

What point are you making?

Indeed, countries differ in how they treat flag desceration. In some countries, you can go to prison (for years) for burning the flag. (I brought up flag desecration because it seemed like the universal example of an item of symbolic value, where the value of the item is far more and far different than the material it is made of. The decriminalization of flag desecration seems like a relatively recent development; I wasn't aware of its extent.)

My point is that there are material and non-material items of symbolic value in a culture the desecration of which is punishable by law. Just like the national flag isn't just a piece of cloth, words aren't just sounds or ink blots. This notion isn't limited to primitive cultures.

There is a trend in interpreting the stance of Iran as somehow irrational, that they are "working themselves up over nothing" and severly punish a person who is not guilty of any crime.

I'm pointing out that Western, supposedly democratic, secular cultures can be charged with the same criticism. Just about different things. For example, high treason is punishable by death or life imprisonment in many democratic countries.

The fatwa against Rushdie is equvalent to our notion of high treason. So where seems to be the problem?

Equivocating a fatwa with a rule of law is just plain wrong. A fatwa isn't law and in this case the rule was also intended to have retroactive effect, because it imposes a punishment for behaviour that existed before the rule was communicated. That is always bad law.

The reason high treason is punishable is because it generally detrimentally affects a large group of people. So from a typical liberal perspective, the harm principle can be applied. Since nobody is harmed by Rushdie's book, they can after all choose not to read it, punishing it is quite frankly ridiculous. If you don't want to be aggravated or insulted, don't interact with people at all, don't read, don't watch television and don't listen to the radio.

In a similar vain, treason that could never damage people or protects a higher norm, shouldn't be punished either. Generally, judges tend to take such effects into account when deciding on the severity of punishment.

Name one instance where it's not like this.
— baker
Literature. — Tom Storm

I majored in literature. An authoritarian endeavor it is. It's all dogma and power games through and trough. "Independent exploration" my ass. At the end of the day, you're supposed to think, feel, and speak about a literary text the way your superiors expect you to, or you fail the grade.

Oh, the political correctness!
— baker
What point are you making?

The passage you quoted is an example of the kind of talk I've heard before, from people from other religions. I've seen it myself that when such an invitation is accepted and the requested challenge in fact posed, the religious get offended. All too often I've seen religious people be like one person in their public talks, but then, when personally addressed, it's like they become someone else, another person.
In my experience such requests were never meant to be taken seriously. It's just religious grandstanding, much like when the RCC pope issues a public apology.

Equivocating a fatwa with a rule of law is just plain wrong. A fatwa isn't law and in this case the rule was also intended to have retroactive effect, because it imposes a punishment for behaviour that existed before the rule was communicated. — Benkei

That's just the thing: It _is_ law. It is _Islamic_ law.

Since nobody is harmed by Rushdie's book,

The Islamic authorities disagree.

they can after all choose not to read it, punishing it is quite frankly ridiculous.

Would you make the same case for hate speech?

If you don't want to be aggravated or insulted, don't interact with people at all, don't read, don't watch television and don't listen to the radio.

Wrong. It's not about not wanting to be aggravated or insulted. It's about not tolerating such aggravation or insult.

Nobody specifically wants to be aggraved or insulted. It is not fair to expect some people to quietly tolerate aggravation and insult, while others get to revenge themselves.

In a similar vain, treason that could never damage people or protects a higher norm, shouldn't be punished either.

Blasphemy does damage a higher norm.


Example: If a person who is not a citizen of the US says or does something that the US authorities consider harmful to the US, what does the US do? They punish this person, and this punishment can include death. When another country does this same kind of thing, why is this problematic?

At the end of the day, you're supposed to think, feel, and speak about a literary text the way your superiors expect you to, or you fail the grade. — baker

Sure, that happens. But the point is you don't risk death or maiming by strangers all around the world for decades. Nor will anyone throw acid in your face for being a woman daring to gain an education. For my money you can't compare these expressions of 'authority'. And even if they were exactly the same, this would amount to a tu quoque fallacy.

Artists in the West can generally be hatefully critical towards power elites and government and religions and not face these problems.

I've seen it myself that when such an invitation is accepted and the requested challenge in fact posed, the religious get offended. All too often I've seen religious people be like one person in their public talks, but then, when personally addressed, it's like they become someone else, another person — baker

Whatever you may have seen does not necessarily warrant calling the quote 'politically correct' as a kind of pejorative. That's a Fox News style comment. But you are correct that some people are hypocrites. Sometimes you can tell if they are or not by how much their public comments have cost them.

That's just the thing: It _is_ law. It is _Islamic_ law. — baker

No, it isn't. Depends on whether a given country recognises is as such. So it might have been law in Iran but it certainly wasn't in the US.

The Islamic authorities disagree. — baker

Point me to the part where they considered the harm principle. They didn't disagree, it simply wasn't a consideration. Your statement is therefore false.

Would you make the same case for hate speech? — baker

A book that would call for violence against others is not protected speech and does harm others when people act upon the call. Since Rhusdie didn't, your suggested equivocation is wrong footed.

Wrong. It's not about not wanting to be aggravated or insulted. It's about not tolerating such aggravation or insult.

Nobody specifically wants to be aggraved or insulted. It is not fair to expect some people to quietly tolerate aggravation and insult, while others get to revenge themselves. — baker

You're simply missing the point and arguing against a straw man. The point is that aggravation is not grounds for punishment. You currently aggravate me with a badly argued post. Off with your head.

Blasphemy does damage a higher norm. — baker

Which higher norm? You're free to follow a religion, I'm free to ridicule you for it.

Example: If a person who is not a citizen of the US says or does something that the US authorities consider harmful to the US, what does the US do? They punish this person, and this punishment can include death. When another country does this same kind of thing, why is this problematic? — baker

This is not an example but an interesting representation of your biases. I talk shit about the USA on a daily basis and I'm fine.

I've removed the completely irrelevant personal attacks, because this discussion has been civil for a good four pages and I don't want it to degenerate like the Ukraine discussion did.

The prophet comes across as a great man, and there is no contempt for Islam in that book whatsoever.
— Olivier5

You don't get to decide that. — baker

I do, at least for myself. If you disagree, you are welcome to pinpoint what you personally see as the contemptuous parts in Rushdie's book.

@baker Raises some very telling observations.
The "law" is used arbitrarily by nation states when it suits their political and economic agendas. Flag burning is a prime example.

We have heard US politicians call publicly for the assignation of leaders of other nations when it suits.
The US has also blatantly contravened international law in engaging in conflict.

Personally I see double standards and an Elitist mindset from "western" nations and Iran.

There should be freespeech but also common sense.
Public calls for political violence are the limit of freespeech for all parties.

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.

I think that's fair comment. The topic here concerns reactions to the attack and what conclusions, if any, can be drawn from those. It's a difficult enough question without a bunch of distractions that seem to be aimed at mitigating the injustice of what was done to Rushdie. If someone wants to start a thread on whether we should get behind stabbing an artist in the face because a leading religious extremist took offence to his book, they can try that elsewhere. Preferably on a forum that caters to that sort of thing.

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. — Hanover

There's presently a public discussion going on about freedom of speech, specifically regarding the tender topic of criticising Islamic leaders without being accused of Islamophobia.

I don't trust anyone on the American right to say squat about Islamic leadership because they've stood by silently as Trump and his buddies were racist as hell. Republicans do not deserve the trust of the rest of Americans on this issue.

I understand your goal, but it's like doing forensics on an active battlefield.

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.

It's like herding cats with you guys. — Hanover

Must be exhausting.

Must be exhausting. — Tate

I know, right?

@Hanover
There are two points here,but related.
First,as I said fatwas are not universally binding or accepted by all Muslims. Many Shiah clerics do not accept the fatwa either.

There isn't a "muted" reaction,it's just the media doesn't report the councils and leaders who have condemned the attack,or those who disagree with the fatwa.

In the Islamic world it's extremely rare for a cleric ( who also happened to be the country's leader) to set a worldwide binding fatwa. Just like Christianity There are many denominations and subdivisions beyond Sunni and Shia. There is no one pope in Islam to usher worldwide edicts.

As a very loose analogy,the Marlborough baptist church does not represent Christianity as a whole.

Secondly,one must be consistent and think beyond a colonial mindset. Islamic theology is not a monolith.
At the moment the Eastern orthodox churches of Ukraine and Russia have issued edicts backing war against each others people. How is this not an equivalence?

My own position is crystal clear I condemn all sides religious and secular for using "law" to publicly endorse violence for political ends.

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?

@Baden
You are speaking to a Muslim here,and one who has condemned the attack on rushdie,and ALL public calls for political violence.

I'm trying to explain how theology is not a monolith,and how a lot of Muslims perceive things specifically and in a wider context.

Yet here you are censoring a previous post of mine and throwing in a red herring comment about people starting threads in defense of violence.

Either you want to hear from normal Muslims and get a better understanding or your just hearing what you've already made up your mind upon.
Bottom line,Muslims are not a monolith theologically or as people.

:up:

There isn't any organization that can detect the confusion among non-Muslims about the silence of Islamic leaders. There's no Islamic PR department in the US. Even if there was, as you point out, religious authority in Islam doesn't work the same way as it does in Judaism and Christianity.

@Tate
When I get the opportunity I try to explain to people that Muslims in general are not violent,nor do many even listen to their imams.

To many Islam is a basic personal faith consisting of belief in God,an afterlife,a time of judgement for good deeds,prayer,fasting etc.

Many have no idea of theology,fatwas and most haven't even read the quran in a language they understand.

Just as many Christians and Jews are not beholden to their priests or rabbis,ditto for Muslims.

Though most Muslims believe in God,their lives are otherwise "secular."

Twenty years ago or so ago I would criticise many Muslims leaders for not saying enough against fundamentalism,but in that twenty year span Muslims have learned and the culture is now a lot different and many Muslim leaders voice their disapproval.

The thing is,if your not on the ground or privy to imams its much harder to hear this disapproval as the media does not readily report these imams but instead sensationalises and tbh misleads the non discerning public.

I think the public would welcome a condemnation of violence from some Muslim spokesperson. But who would that be?

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

@Tate
There are numerous non famous Muslim clerics
who have condemned this Rushdie violence.
There are many others who have condemned terrorism in general.
A Google search will bring up some of them.

Thing is,the media have to report it.

I don't think this was terrorism per se.

Which non famous Muslim clerics condemned it? Any outside the West?