This post is not about whether Rushdie deserves his "K." That's a perfectly legitimate discussion but it's not the topic on which I am writing.

This is also not about Rushdie's character. Again, a legitimate topic but one which I eschew.

Finally, this is not about whether Rushdie's knighthood is offensive to Muslims. I think we can take that as a given.

What I am writing about is the RESPONSE from some Muslim quarters to Rushdie's knighthood.

"Today, Pakistan's religious affairs minister suggested that the knighthood was so grave an offence that any Muslim anywhere in the world would be justified in taking violent action."

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1948375.ece

The minister later retracted.

"In Multan, effigies of the writer and the monarch have been burned by about 100 students carrying banners and chanting "Kill Him! Kill Him!""

See:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1271043,00.html

"...a group of traders in Islamabad banded together to place a $140,000 bounty on his [Rushdie's] head."

See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118256636395345580.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The problem Muslims and their apologists face is this. Few Muslim scholars deny that Sharia mandates death for apostates and Rushdie is, if nothing else, an apostate. Those who are calling for Rushdie to be killed have the weight of Islamic scholarship on their side.

This is a clear clash of legal systems if not civilisations. The one system calls for apostates to be put to death. The other says you can't go bumping off writers because you don't like what they say.

Any comments

Steven, any group that substitutes belief for observation, and dogma for understanding deserves condemnation. When an idea, in this case Islam, feels the need to kill lapsed believers and critics, it tells me that it is more a slavery than a worthwhile avenue to understanding.The only freedom literal Islamic belief encourages in the modern world is freedom from observation thought and understanding.

Palimpsest,

I agree with you.

But religion generally, and militant Islam specifically, is going to be with us for a while yet. So we had better learn how to manage the beasts.

BTW I believe the bounty on Rushdie's head now totals US$3 mn.

Has the new Australian Mufti, Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam, had anything to say about renewed calls for Rushdie's death?

Doubtless apologists for Islam will say the mufti is not obliged to speak on the matter. Technically they are right. Yet I daresay his silence, if it persists, tells us all we need to know.

Palim
I'm glad you recognize the evil in the Islamic idea of executing apostates.

As you know, I'm Christian, and the worst a lapsed Christian can expect from those who are still strong is this:

Romans 15:1

We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3For even Christ did not please himself....

*OUCH*.. now that hurts,.... I'll be cringing in utter fear of annoying my pastor, or irritating fellow Christians, or 'thinking wrong doctrinal thoughts, or saying something I didn't think about, or questioning God in the presense of my brothers and sisters in Christ"

Quite a contrast to "If a man changes his deen KILL HIM"

or...

Quran 5:33
SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned;

The term "Mischief" is worth noting. This would mean the likes of Ka'b Bin Al Ashraf, who had not actually made war, but was apparently 'stirring' it up. He was murdered. His poetry was considered 'mischief'. Clearly, my own writings would be classified as 'mishief'.

The other point needing to be highlighted in the above, is the the CLEAR implication is that "Islam" is understood to be a 'State' and a political religion. The rules laid down are for a 'state'.

So, we should all be VERY wary of the 'nice' Muslims like FH and IRF, because they are clearly not portraying "Islam" in it's true colors.

Islam is only a 'religion' UNTIL it can become a State. Then..... ?

MOHAMMAD and TORTURE/BRUTALITY.

As for the beginnings of Islam, so it is now with Rushdie.

Yr 630's Ka'b Bin Al Ashraf (and many others)
2000s Salman Rushdie.....

Whats changed ? Nothing.

When it comes to the use of Torture by Mohammad, and the criticism of Ibn Ishaq as the source, (or Tabari in other cases) All Muslims need do to cast doubt on these accounts, is show that they were criticized (on the specific incidents) by Islamic scholars down through the centuries.

The blanket use of 'Malik' who is said to have claimed "Ishaq was a liar" simply does not hold water unless:

a)It can be shown on WHAT issues he is alleged to have lied. (Banu Qurayza? Khaiber?)
b)Malik's own position can be duely separated from the Sunni/Shia politics which he was involved in at the time. (Ummayad/Abbasid families contending for Caliphate supremacy)
c)It can be explained why Muslims scholars often use Ishaq to SUPPORT their view of Mohammad as some kind of hero.

It was common for those in one camp or the other, to cast aspercions on those historians of the other camp, for political advantage to the masters they served.

Steven,
"Few muslim scholars deny sharia apostasy"
Actually most Islamic scholars agree on the opposite. The view below is promoted by most scholars including MS. Tantawi, Sheikh of Al Azhar (the highest authority for Muslims), Dr M. Shaltout and the former chief of justice in Pakistan (SA Rahman). Even old scholars like Ibn Taymyya
The death of Apostates in Islam is referred in one hadith and contradicts the Quran. The hadith have many reservations:

1. It contradicts the Quran (4:137) "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path” . This verse seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy.It also contradicts “let there be no pulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." (2:256)

2. This hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient basis on which to impose the death penalty.

3. There is no historical record which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy. Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason. (e.g. declaring war on Islam)

4. A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries (such as Ibn Taymiyyah) have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty.
Dr. Maher Hathout, author of "In Pursuit of Justice: The Jurisprudence of Human Rights in Islam," writes:
"We strongly oppose the state's use of coercion in regulating Islamic belief in such a manner, since faith is a matter of individual choice on which only God can adjudicate."

Boaz, sorry to spoil the 'bashing fest',
Next time.
Peace,