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,

Classic behavior for persons who are unable to reconsile two
opposing desires.
One to do as they are told, two to do unto others as you would want
others to do unto you.

I still say it is a genetic behaviour problem, no other race of
people has carried on like this for over a thousand years.
It may well be the reason why the Israel-Palestinian problem is unresolvable.

Many with bahaviour problems react badly when they are refused something
or do not get their way.

FH, check your facts.
1. It contradicts the Quran (4:137). Who cares what the Quran says! The important thing is what Muslims do, and especially what they do where they dominate. In Islamic societies, the penalty for apostasy is death. You will notice it is mostly Muslims that live in Western societies that say otherwise, where apostates cannot be killed. How convenient. Does that give you a clue? Have people no shame?
2. This hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. No, FH, there are a ton of hadith about killing apostates from many different writers, including Bukhari, Muslim and AbuDawud.
3. There is no historical record indicating that Muhammad or his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy. Wrong. "Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed" Bukhari Vol9book84verse58 and many other places.
4. Many Islamic scholars say apostasy is serious, but does not require death. Except "Traditional Islamic Jurisprudence" demanding death for apostates is all over the Internet.

Be aware that apostasy is not just leaving Islam. It is much broader concept and our Muslim friends forgot to mention that it includes denying existence of God, rejecting prophethood of Muhammad, cursing or questioning Muhammads character, or even rejecting Muslim scholarship (ulema)

My favorite concept is Muslims being able to kill a person for "Mischief”. How can anybody respect a god that uses an ambiguous word like that? The Quran that people who commit the terrible crime of mischief can be killed. Wow!

Here once again, we have Muslims being less than honest about their religion and prophet. This is another example of deception by Muslims. They want you do believe that Islam is what they say or they would like it to be, not what it is. Time after time, Muslims misquote and get basic facts wrong. The Quran teaches hate and violence, but Muslims pretend otherwise. The hadiths are full of stories of raids, murder, plunder, slavery, torture and rape by Mohammed, but Muslims don’t want to talk about that either.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses.

Kactuz

I'm an atheist!
If all such we'd have no discussion. I was not always so, what the hell are we discussing, the right of one mob to kill another?
Get real it's against most modern thinking to kill, as it should be.
How does any thinking person believe he's justified in killing one who thinks or speaks his mind? This particularly in view of the fact that these philosophies were dreamed up 2000 years ago, enough to put one off his cornflakes.
History I believe is to learn from, that mistakes made in the past should not be repeated?
Religion is and has been the reason for murder for too long.
peace to you all.
fluff

Kaktuz,

“Who cares what the Quran says”

What’s mentioned in the Quran is what Islam is because what all Muslims agree as the Holybook. Hadith that conflicts with the Quran are dismissable.


“ No, FH, there are a ton of hadith about killing apostates from many different writers, including Bukhari, Muslim and AbuDawud”

The hadith I am referring to is the Abu dawood one and hadith follows a science of narration. Which makes it a single source hadith.
.
“Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses”
Since that your favourite slogan I have a better one from channel 9:
"if you are a woman, get into target”

Peace,

FH.

1/ It should not be forgotten that 'the conensus of the Muslims' on any issue makes it 'law'....
2/ The introduction to Bukhari and Muslim Hadith make it clear, that they were NOT considered by the scholars to be contradictory to the Quran ...if they were they would not have been included.

You are ducking and weaving mate.

FLUFF.. your turn :)
you say ur an atheist, and you feel that if we all stopped talking about our religious positions, everyone would be fine and we wouldn't be killing each other.

Sorry to challenge you, but one should not lump all religions into the one basket.

If Religion "A" says "If you leave us we will kill you" and religion "B" says "If you leave us, its ur own choice and on your own head" and if Religion "A" is based on a totalitarian State, and Religion "B" is based on the simple gathering of believers in happy fellowship under any kind of government.... and if Religion "A" writes letters of threat to Heads of government like 'If you embrace our religion, you and your property will be safe" and Religion "B" says "My kingdom is NOT of 'this' world" there is good reason to distinguish between them.

You sound like you are humming John Lennons "Imagine"

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

But what do people with no moral anchor (living 4 today) do to each other ?

'Stalins purges' 21,000,000 slaughtered.
'Cultural Revolution' 30,000,000 slaughtered.
Or..to put it closer to our daily lives.... "Get the f out of that parking space I HAD IT CHOSEN before you drove into it you f-ing moron"
and so on.

Christ said "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly"

A much better option than 'imagine'.

Boaz,

"1/ It should not be forgotten that 'the conensus of the Muslims' on any issue makes it 'law'"

Thats only correct if it does not contradict the Quran. See below.

"2/ The introduction to Bukhari and Muslim Hadith make it clear, that they were NOT considered by the scholars to be contradictory to the Quran"

The introduction is as old as the book.
Here is the opinion of Dr Maher Hathout, a scholar and 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."
Referring to the two hadiths traditionally used to justify the death penalty, Hathout writes:

"...both of them contradict the Quran and other instances in which the Prophet did not compel anyone to embrace Islam, nor punish them if they recanted."

"In one incident, the Prophet pardoned Abdullah bin Sa'd, after he renounced Islam. Abdullah bin Sa'd was one of the people chosen by the Prophet as a scribe, to write down Qur'anic text as it was revealed to the Prophet. After spending some time with the Muslims in Madina, he recanted and returned to the religion of the Quraish. When he was brought before the Prophet, Osman bin Affan pleaded on his behalf, and the Prophet subsequently pardoned Abdullah bin Sa'd (Ibn Hisham)"

I don't duck or weave Fuhrer, you must be looking at the mirror.