Here's what Daniel Pipes - considered a pretty extreme critic of Islam and a leading Islamophobe in today's America, and author of a book on the Rushdie controversy - wrote about the legality of Khomeini's ruling in terms of Islamic law:
Salman Rushdie attacked on stage in New York
- Thread starter HookedOnAPhelan
- Start date
More from Pipes here:
Thanks @2cents for adding the necessary texts. But, of course, none of this was necessary for me and many Muslims as we already know and have stated that what the guy did is not part of Islam. In fact it goes against the religion.
Ps. I know you didn't imply the above, I'm just responding to others determined to continue mansplaining it to me because they have their own mental baggage.
Ps. I know you didn't imply the above, I'm just responding to others determined to continue mansplaining it to me because they have their own mental baggage.
Yes, of course you are right, they "remain contested". But obviously there are a lot of people who take them seriously. Even people who live in the West, like this particular guy.
There are also the ideas of the Taliban, and those also remain contested.
And the Saudi Arabia laws for the women, that also remains contested.
And the Boko Haram practices. That also remains contested and not accepted by all Muslims.
But after so many examples of 12th century ideas in the 21st century, the average muslim should ask serious questions. I am an atheist, so I don't really count, nobody gives a fart about my ideas and in some places (some muslim-dominated places) I would be harmed just because I am an atheist.
But the muslims themselves, should ask serious questions about their "faith" that creates all these idiocies in the 21st century. And they haven't really done it, that's the main problem. They are too busy finding excuses and pointing out that the Quran does not say that, or that Islam is not that, or that the crusaders in the 12th century were worse, or that the average muslim is a nice person. All true, all irrelevant.
Last edited:
Ding ding ding.
My faith is fine. I ask questions of dumbasses that don't follow Islam, but instead try to corrupt it.
On an unrelated note, do you understand now?
But a ‘corrupted’ version of Islam is still Islam.
I was born in a Muslim household but never really believed till later in life. Most of it through questioning many of the things you have wrote.
For me I reached where I am by arguing with Muslims about Islam which ultimately lead me to sources that made me think and ultimately accept Islam. My arguments continue and it isn't with atheists or other non Muslims but with sections of my own family, community, mosques etc.
The issue for me when it comes to Islam is often that everyone gets bunched into one grouping. The Taliban are Muslim so me, Khomeini was muslim so me etc and it's frustrating. This doesn't happen with other groups or religions.
For example I've been reading the abortion thread on here and almost all the posts are about a sect fr America. But I differentiate. As I do with the right wing fascists "fighting" whilst using Jesus as their saviour etc. I don't bunch them all as evil of Christianity and I certainly don't expect every Christian to apologise for it.
Silarly with atheists or agnostics. If one commits an act that is "evil" as in killings them I don't think all are to blame.
I also don't use certain websites as sources when they are set up for a specific purpose, so the fella who has quoted "hadith" (the Thierry fella) on another thread is verbatim from the CEMB forum/board. A board of ex Muslims (or supposed to be) that basically lie. Or previous threads where S Shamoun and his answering Islam blog is the source.
One of the biggest Muslim communities in UK is the Barelwi community (I'm not but pretty much my whole family is). This community has no love for the Saudis. They go against their decisions eg moon sightings etc.
Many Muslims don't even consider Saudi a muslim country (based on their constitution and rulers) because it's not the population being musl that makes a country Muslim but the law and rule.
As muslims we do many things with hesitation but we must. So Friday prayers in congregation in a particular local mosque is something we do because the command is to pray that prayer in congregation at a mosque. But we may disagree with the stance of that mosque. A sort of Catholic going to a Protestant church as it's all that's available scenario (don't know if this would ever happen just an example to explain my point).
It really isn't.
This is one of the things people simply refuse to understand.
If you saw a guy eating a big Mac whilst claiming to be a vegan would you say he is still vegan?
Bingo. All religions are open to interpretation as how to best adhere to them and that is the problem.
No because it's clear what meat is and what the definition of vegan is. Being religious is ridiculously vague. Adhering to religious principles (as evidence by so many different sects) is just as vague.
But this guy is following a version of Islam. It’s not the same as the question you pose.
It’s bizarre, the mental gymnastics & platitudes y’all employ to try to disassociate your religion from evil it literally causes, even if it is a perverted form of it.
This person would not have stabbed Rushdie if the person wasn’t Islamic.
Always found it weird here in the UK that Muslims entirely unrelated to an incident were expected to apologise for them (by a large section of society), in a manner that wasn’t extended to other religions or groups.
No it isn't. Let me give you a simple example. And I'm keeping it simple here.
The nation of Islam claim to be Muslim.
The definition of a muslim is in the shahadah (attestation of faith) there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his last and final messenger (Prophet)
NOI say Elijah Mohammed is a prophet.
It's a vegan eating a big Mac.
Are there other religions that have instances like this with the same frequency over there?
It's exactly as the question I pose. And I don't do mental gymnastics. I like simple.
And yes I do disassociate with nonsense. Just as I don't associate actions by individuals and sects/groups who commit heinous acts.
I gave the example of the religious right in America. I don't think all Christians are as nuts as them. I disassociate Christianity from lunatic fringes.
What Muslim related instances in the UK are you referring to?
But the lunacy doesn’t / can’t exist without being of a certain religion first. It’s that simple. It’s impossible to divorce religion from this.
People don’t skip religion on their way to being extremist, etc., religion is the springboard.
I’m asking because I don’t live over there. I don’t know.
Mate you speak of unrelated and extended to other religious groups, after 9/11 the Sikhs had it worse than Muslims. They were turbans and have long beards so we're literally getting killed.
Oh, please explain to us like we are in kindergarten how a fundamentalist version of a religion is not of that religion or not a part of that religion.What?
See this is where I can't get my head around the arguments put forward. And why I use the vegan eating a big Mac example.
If a person contradicts the basic fundamentals of a faith or a religion the bow is religion the springboard? Surely it's because they aren't following the religion?
You said corrupted initially.
And again I say vegan and big Mac.
Look I'm not trying to be slick or clever here. It's really simple in my head. If I read a headline atheist kills people. And then in the first paragraph it said so and so was uncertain about if God existed or not then i would argue he wasn't atheist but rather agnostic.
Similarly if I read about an individual group and it said muslims kill people but it was NOI and/or qadiani and/or Shia rafidah then they are not Muslim and Islam wasn't the springboard.
Edit: realised your post wasn't aimed at me. But will.leave this here
This is the ultimate "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Vegans don't eat big Mac's fella.
Gotcha, it’d depend on how strictly you tied certain instances or groups to religion. While this was outside the UK it was heavily discussed here. Breivik claimed his attack was motivated as a way to defend Christian Europe (while not being a Christian himself) and to defend the sanctity of European Christian values. While other issues were focused on (white supremacy, xenophobia/racism), it was never conceptualised as a Christianity issue in a way that it would have been had the perpetrator been Muslim and also used his religion as his justification (I.e I want to preserve Muslim values ).
Some of the paramilitary groups during and after the troubles claimed religious motivation, and while the conflict didn’t really have anything to do with religion (this isn’t strictly true but I’m struggling to think of a better way to put it), a similar situation involving different Islamic parties would not have been granted the same nuance when it came to acknowledging the causes. History going back the best part of millennia would needed to be understood to come to the conclusion that it wasn’t about religion but colonialism, culture and politics. Whereas if you took out Protestantism and Catholicism and inserted the two main branches of Islam, regardless of the underlying causes, politics and history that led to the conflict, religion would be the only factor in the eyes of many.
A lot of It is ignorance leading to the homogenisation of the religion over here. Plenty of people would understand that the pope has little to do with their local Anglican priest, or that a J witness knocking on their door probably doesn’t want to talk Christmas. A lot of these people wouldn’t be aware of similar distinctions within the Islamic world, so instead of a diverse group of people with varying histories, traditions and schools of thought, it becomes reduced to a single identity, Moslems and ray guns
Aye but iirc wasn’t that because they were being misidentified as Muslims?
There's vegan burgers now.
I think its about whether fundamentalist or extreme interpretation can be said to be plausible. For instance it's impossible to make a plausible violent interpretation of jainism. The material simply isn't there.
I don't think this is really a suitable example and would also depend on the context. First of all, being a vegan has very very clear rules (or really only one rule), though even within that, there is some range. If I saw a guy eating a big mac on a daily basis? Then no, he's not a vegan and is just openly lying. If I saw him eating a big mac once in an otherwise unblemished years of being a vegan, then yes they're still a vegan. If its someone making the change from being an omnivore and they're gradually cutting meat out with blips here and there, yes they're a vegan because its in the intent and they're trying.
Its also a dangerous road. The reality is different Muslims will have different thresholds for what they consider to be Muslim. I know muslims who drink alcohol, are they Muslims? How about pre-marital sex? How about not praying? How about only fasting some days in Ramadan? I'm not talking lapsed Muslims, Im talking people who would still class themselves Muslims, follow Muslim teachings in the majority of ways and do a mixture of the things above (ie they may drink on occasion but they also pray 5 times a day, fast, are abstinent etc etc).
This topic is always a bit difficult because as someone else said above, you have some who wash their hands of the situation and say well what he's done is not Muslim at all and therefore that's it and you have others who, like that Thierry guy, are interested mostly in inflammatory content and posting in a way that they must surely know is not conducive to any kind of conversation.
Does Islam say any random person can run up to someone who, rightly or wrongly, has been deemed to be an apostate and written offensive things about Islam, and kill them in the street? No it does not. Does Islamic law allow for the death penalty for apostasy in certain conditions? Yes it does.
I've said before that my wife has an Islamic background on one side of her family and I'm obviously very familiar with her extended family back home. We've also been part of various Islamic communities here in the UK, including via a Sunday Arabic school for the kids. Not one person in those groups has ever been violent. However, some of them do sometimes make statements.....that are unsavoury. These are not particularly uncommon. Some may even be called a dog whistle. Are any of these people ever going to act on some of what they've said and do violent acts? No, I don't think so. However, in certain circumstances, these comments could certainly rile others up, yet they very rarely, if ever, get challenged.
Its similar to what Tucker Carlson for example does or on a smaller scale, if someone is at the pub or whatever making comments about how immigrants are doing x or muslims doing y and its affecting our country. They're not necessarily making violent statements themselves and not actually committing violent acts. Yet their speech can incite others if left relatively unchallenged.
Constantly saying that these people aren't actually Muslim or don't represent Islam unfortunately for me doesn't quite cut it. It allows us to wash our hands of the situation and not look at the root causes of why someone attacked Rushdie with the intent to kill, why someone else in Japan killed the Japanese translator, why someone stabbed and almost killed the Italian translator, why someone shot and almost killed the Norwegian translator, why dozens of people were killed in a fire meant to kill the Turkish translator.
Words do have consequences.
@africanspur I am not saying the culprit is not a Muslim. I am also not saying he did this in the name of Islam.
What I am clear about is that what he did is not allowed in Islam. I can't reiterate this enough.
Another foodie example: it's like a Muslim saying Bismillah and then proceeding to eat a bacon sandwich with a glass of alcoholic beverage. It's quite clear in Islam this is not allowed but can you believe there are some individuals that think that is ok.
What I am clear about is that what he did is not allowed in Islam. I can't reiterate this enough.
Another foodie example: it's like a Muslim saying Bismillah and then proceeding to eat a bacon sandwich with a glass of alcoholic beverage. It's quite clear in Islam this is not allowed but can you believe there are some individuals that think that is ok.
Started reading the book again last night, and already further into it than I got last time so hopefully should finish it this time around.
Fairly good documentary.
I mean It's hardly much of an upgrade that if Rushdie had been put in an islamic trial and said "I honestly don't regret losing my faith and becoming an ex-muslim. And I also don't regret writing a book satirising Muhammed". It would have been totally yay okay to kill him. LIke I said before this is very much how a Mafia operates, certainly not a religion that is supposed to be about love and compassion and all that jazz.
Last edited:
Forget Mafia, this is exactly how Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi governments operate.
Doesn't make any of what they do (e.g. Khashogi) correct in Islam. Rushdie cannot be put on trial anywhere on this planet as there is no (true and proper) Islamic jurisprudence anywhere.
What the guy did stabbing Rushdie is not allowed in Islam. What others do giving fatwas to stab him is also not allowed in Islam.
What do for example Saudi or Iranian officials say? Do they distinguish between Islamic policy and national policy? And are they challenged by scholars on their Islamic policies?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
"What others do giving fatwas to stab him is also not allowed in Islam."
So, what happened to them? Did they go to prison for giving fatwas since it is not allowed?
Not if the person giving the fatwa is the supreme leader of a country.