Your problem with Islam.

[Jane_the_Bane]

I didn't pay much attention to the Ruckus over Rushdie, but I was familiar with Rushdie. That was before I accepted Islam and I was an atheist at the time. I felt it was a publicity stunt by Rushdie to sell his book.

Having Ayatollah Khomenei place a bounty on his head and having to live in hiding and under protection for decades was a "publicity stunt"? Boy, that author must be staggeringly dedicated to seeing his work sell well.

I had read the book, it was not one of Rushdie's better works. Just my opinion.

It was certainly not his best, but it's a pretty decent novel about the loss of faith, full of magical realism, unrealiable narrators and quite a bit of socio-political commentary.
I read it several times, once "naively", as a merely receptive reader wanting to know what the fuss was about (and not finding anything overtly offensive about it), and once as a critical scholar teaching a course on post-colonial literature.

Regardless of whether you consider it a major accomplishment or not, nothing in there merits death threats and burned-down shops.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Having Ayatollah Khomenei place a bounty on his head and having to live in hiding and under protection for decades was a "publicity stunt"? Boy, that author must be staggeringly dedicated to seeing his work sell well.

At the time I was not Muslim and was just critical of Rushdie as an author. I had only recently left Christianity and was entering the Atheistic phase of my life. I was some what active at Gun shows and did some wheeling/dealings with antique firearms. I did buy a large stack of Khomeni targets. Even though I had been in Iran as a Missionary, that was during the Reign of the Shah and I had never heard of an Ayatollah.

It was much later that I discovered an Ayatollah was a Shi'ite Religious leader sort of comparable with the Pope over the Shi'a but was not followed by Sunni.

Since I accepted Islam and follow the Sunni path I am quite anti-Ayatollah. As a Sunni I am forbidden to follow any living Religious leaders unless I first prove what they say to be true.

Also a Fatwa to some Shi'a has a very different meaning than what a fatwa means to a Sunni. A fatwas is not a command and no Muslim is obligated to even agree with a fatwa. Khomeni did not speak for Islam, He spoke as a Shi'ite leader.

 

[smaneck]

I was too young to fully understand what was going on at the time, but the events surrounding the publication of Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" (street riots and destroyed book shops in Britain, the Ayatollah declaring a manhunt and placing a bounty on the author's head, prominent convert Yusuf Islam - formerly known as Cat Stevens - declaring that Rushdie ought to be killed, etc.) pretty much embody my problem with contemporary Islam.

Not exactly what Cat Stevens said. He said that in a state run in accordance with the shariah, Salman Rushdie would be subject to the death penalty. He went on to say that no one has the right to take this into their own hands. He did not support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

I was in graduate school at the time and Muslims and non-Muslims there were going back and forth about it, but no one actually read the book. So I read it, wrote a review of it that was subsequently published in the student newspaper of the University of Arizona. A few things I would say about the book. First, it was immensely funny and not without profundities. The descriptions of India were so perfect I could smell the slums of Santa Cruz again. Second, it was deliberately offensive not just to Muslims but to virtually any religion. Third, Salman Rushdie knew exactly what he was doing and the consequences. He has the poet who was executed by "Mahound" in his story say, "Poets and prostitutes, these two you cannot forgive." And Mahound answers "Poets and prostitutes, I make no distinction between them." Fourth, I think the Ayatollah's reaction to the book had more to do with the insulting way the Ayatollah himself was depicted as much as Muhammad. Of course, I found that the funniest part of the book.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Not exactly what Cat Stevens said. He said that in a state run in accordance with the shariah, Salman Rushdie would be subject to the death penalty. He went on to say that no one has the right to take this into their own hands. He did not support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

I was in graduate school at the time and Muslims and non-Muslims there were going back and forth about it, but no one actually read the book. So I read it, wrote a review of it that was subsequently published in the student newspaper of the University of Arizona. A few things I would say about the book. First, it was immensely funny and not without profundities. The descriptions of India were so perfect I could smell the slums of Santa Cruz again. Second, it was deliberately offensive not just to Muslims but to virtually any religion. Third, Salman Rushdie knew exactly what he was doing and the consequences. He has the poet who was executed by "Mahound" in his story say, "Poets and prostitutes, these two you cannot forgive." And Mahound answers "Poets and prostitutes, I make no distinction between them." Fourth, I think the Ayatollah's reaction to the book had more to do with the insulting way the Ayatollah himself was depicted as much as Muhammad. Of course, I found that the funniest part of the book.

You make a good point there. The Ayatollah was pretty much depicted as a madman or maniac. Thinking back at the Rifle target that became hot sellers at gun shows.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Not exactly what Cat Stevens said. He said that in a state run in accordance with the shariah, Salman Rushdie would be subject to the death penalty. He went on to say that no one has the right to take this into their own hands. He did not support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

He commented on the issue more than once, and although his version of events would portray his stance in this light retroactively, the actual comments are much more ambiguous, and certainly bespeak a mindset that can only be called unhealthy.
He defended some of that by stating that he was a "new Muslim" at the time, filled with convert's zeal and sufficient honesty to give a straightforward answer.

Even if we take his later interpretation at face value, however, he's still saying that in an ideal Islamic state, blasphemy ought to be punished by death, as per the Qur'an.

That is not a sentiment I could ever support or tolerate.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Not exactly what Cat Stevens said. He said that in a state run in accordance with the shariah, Salman Rushdie would be subject to the death penalty. He went on to say that no one has the right to take this into their own hands. He did not support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

He commented on the issue more than once, and although his version of events would portray his stance in this light retroactively, the actual comments are much more ambiguous, and certainly bespeak a mindset that can only be called unhealthy.
He defended some of that by stating that he was a "new Muslim" at the time, filled with convert's zeal and sufficient honesty to give a straightforward answer.

Even if we take his later interpretation at face value, however, he's still saying that in an ideal Islamic state, blasphemy ought to be punished by death, as per the Qur'an.

That is not a sentiment I could ever support or tolerate.

Not all Sharia madhab's consider blasphemy a capital crime

An Error Cat Stevens made was that under the Largest Madhab of Sharia (Hanafi) Blasphemy and Apostasy are not Hadud crimes and carry no earthly punishment. Under Hanafi Sharia there would be no punishment for Rushdie.

However, under the Shi'ite Jafa'ari madhab I believe Blaphemy does carry the death penalty.

 

[dlamberth]

However, under the Shi'ite Jafa'ari madhab I believe Blaphemy does carry the death penalty.

Under any situation I'm just not able to understand how that could be justified.

.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I mean that Islam sprung up out of Arab culture. In fact, it was a backlash against many parts of Arab culture at the time.

1.) It wasn't a backlash against the culture. Prophet Muhammad was sent there for the same reason all of the other Messengers (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon them all) were sent to the disbelieving nations - to bring the message of Islaam to the people. Of course, like all of the other Prophets, he also corrected the ills of the society but it cannot be said that Islaam came to be because of a backlash against the Arab culture.

2.) Islaam & Arab culture are different. Islaam is not opposed to individual culture unless the culture goes against Islaam.

Generally speaking, when someone posts something negative about Islam, you'll find a lot Muslims defending it by saying that it's the surrounding culture and not Islam that's to blame.

There is nothing negative about Islaam.

Things like honor killings and child brides... that sort of thing.

1.) The Arabs used to kill some of their female infants (Islaam forbade this practice):

And when the news of (the birth of) a female (child) is brought to any of them, his face becomes dark, and he is filled with inward grief! He hides himself from the people because of the ill of which he has been informed. Should he keep it in humiliation or bury it in the ground? Unquestionably, evil is what they decide. (An-Nahl 16:58-59)

And when the female (infant) buried alive shall be questioned. For what sin she was killed? (At-Takwir 81:8-9)

Generally, the people killing their infants at a high rate are not the Muslims and/or Arabs. Imagine that.

So how do you explain this? If it was so difficult to separate culture from Islaam, why has this stopped? Why didn't the concept of the untouchables or the caste system in general seep into the Muslim community and encompass them? Why have Muslims, for the most part, stopped drinking alcohol even though the Arabs loved it dearly? We were able to achieve what the US law failed at - we had widespread abstinence from alcohol. People stopped doing these things things due to adherance of Islaam.

As for things that people do that are against Islaam, what is the fault of the religion here? The fault is of the Muslims whose faith is not strong enough to give up what Allaah has forbidden or those who do not have enough knowledge..

2.) What do you classify as child brides?

Actually, it was the translation into Arabic the works of the Greek Pagan philosophers that sparked the Islamic Golden Age. "Getting back to the fundamentals" is what killed it.

What killed it was the sack of Baghdad which is described as making rivers flow red with blood and black with ink (from all the books that were centered there). We lost all of that information, we didn't get back to that state (though we still had very brilliant scholars and/or scientists and some very awesome years still to come....but I'm referring to what's known in the West as the Golden Age specifically), and we started drifting away from Islaam. Like Rome, Baghdad wasn't built in a day. But it was destroyed quickly.

We were only able to achieve the Golden Age due to adherence to Islaam and people following the Prophet's guidance. As I mentioned before on this forum, the Prophet freed prisoners of war on the condition that each of them would teach ten children the art of reading and writing.

"The number of verses in Qur’an inviting close observation of nature are several times more than those that relate to prayer, fasting, pilgrimage etc. all put together. The Muslim under its influence began to observe nature closely and this gives birth to the scientific spirit of the observation and experiment which was unknown to the Greeks." [Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao]

To quote from a previous post of mine:

Being an Islaamic scholar was a praised thing. Some of our greatest scholars come from that period (Sufyan ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, Malik ibn Anas, ash-Shafi'ee, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Shawkaani, and many more).

And even after the official period of the Golden Age ended, we still had many more great scholars (Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Katheer, Ibn al Qayyim, etc). These scholars weren't just experts in the field they're best known for, they were often experts in other fields as well. Our scholars today still refer heavily to their works.

To deny that Islaam & the advances it caused in the Muslim community allowed for the Golden Age to happen is to be ignorant of history. Again, without Islaam we'd be nothing.
​

Well, that's a no-go for me. My basset hound sleeps in the bed with me.

My cats sleep on my bed too, but it's not the end of the world if I lock them out (for me, at least....sometimes they'll spend a while yowling and scratching at my door until I let them in.....spoiled brats <3 ).

Anyway, if you knew Islaam was the truth, you wouldn't become Muslim because of this? Many converts have a tough time going cold turkey on musical instruments (and/or songs with bad lyrics), but they try to stop. And even if they don't, all they are are sinning Muslims (as opposed to disbelievers) which means that if they die in that state, they will eventually reach Paradise.

As far as what you believe... based upon the hadiths provided, what you're really believing in is a holy game of telephone.

Then you do not have much knowledge on the science of hadeeth. Click here: The Science Of Hadith: A Brief Introduction

Bernard Lewis writes, "But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth." [Lewis, Islam in History, Open Court Publishing, 1993, p.105]

This is an example of culture and religion becoming hard to distinguish.

...This is a religious issue, not a cultural one.

I mean what I said. A great many Muslims seem to sit around waiting to get offended at anything and everything. And because there's no central authority, one can pick and choose which fatwas and hadiths to give weight to. If one were to run an experiment, I'd almost guarantee that people give weight to whatever they already disagree with.

One cannot pick and choose. That's what some Muslims call fatwa shopping. The sincere Muslim is to accept whatever is the strongest evidence. We are to follow it because our purpose in life is to worship Allaah....not our whims and desires.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

An Error Cat Stevens made was that under the Largest Madhab of Sharia (Hanafi) Blasphemy and Apostasy are not Hadud crimes and carry no earthly punishment. Under Hanafi Sharia there would be no punishment for Rushdie.

Can you provide the evidence for this? jazakAllaahu khairan.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Can you provide the evidence for this? jazakAllaahu khairan.

I'd say we've found someone who'd see Rushdie executed, given the opportunity (i.e. sufficient state power).
Am I right?

 

[Forest Wolf]

I was too young to fully understand what was going on at the time, but the events surrounding the publication of Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" (street riots and destroyed book shops in Britain, the Ayatollah declaring a manhunt and placing a bounty on the author's head, prominent convert Yusuf Islam - formerly known as Cat Stevens - declaring that Rushdie ought to be killed, etc.) pretty much embody my problem with contemporary Islam.

The aftermath of the Jüllandsposten caricatures comes to mind, too, if we need a more recent example.

Cat Stevens is now supposedly going only by his name, Yusuf. Having dropped "Islam" as his last name back in 2010.

I remember the Yusuf Islam remarks concerning his support for the death of Rushdie.
The Satanic Verses was a novel, not a expose on the so called evils of the Qur'an. But the relationship between the title and the inference set off a firestorm.

The Draw Muhammad day, the cartoon contest years ago, as I recall, the woman who initiated that remains in hiding for fear of her life after a Fatwah was issued.

Not to forget also the filmmaker VanGogh, who was murdered on the streets of Amsterdam for making a movie exposing the troubles Muslim women endure in Islam. "Behind The Veil" it was called.

Yes, there are horror stories surrounding the faith of Islam and its faithful. But so too are there horror stories surrounding the faith and executed in the name of Christianity as well.
Those behaviors just blacken what others find beautiful in the respective faiths. They're not an example of faith in action. They're an example of faith being acted upon by those who wish to see it as cause for their terrible actions.

It doesn't make the faith itself bad. The people are bad and they invoke the faith as excuse to remain so.
All faiths have their extremists. I've met extremist Wiccan's. That doesn't make Wicca an extremist faith. It means those particular Wiccan's use Wicca as the vehicle for their personal behaviors and inclination toward extremism.

Not exactly what Cat Stevens said. He said that in a state run in accordance with the shariah, Salman Rushdie would be subject to the death penalty. He went on to say that no one has the right to take this into their own hands. He did not support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

That isn't true at all. Though Yusuf now denies he said the things he said supporting the death of Rushdie. And there are even entries at Wiki wherein he's claimed to say he was making bad jokes at the time when he was condemning Rushdie in certain ways.

What he forgets apparently is that his remarks are on record and he was not joking at all.

Yusuf Islam aka Cat Stevens Calling for the Death of Salman Rushdie - YouTube


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Oienjf0GK8

I didn't ask you to speak for muslims.

Yes, you did.

65097973[/url]Any idea about the emotions going through Muslim mind when they read quranic verses denouncing the basis of christianity ?.

I notice you didn't answer my question.

What do you think about the Christian Bible scriptures that command islam to god?

 

[WoodrowX2]

Can you provide the evidence for this? jazakAllaahu khairan.

Na'am Ukhti,

Hanafi scholars refuse to control a human religious or spiritual destiny, and refuse to give that right to any human institution. Among the Hudud crimes, those crimes against God, blasphemy is not listed by the Hanafis. Hanafis concluded that blasphemy could not be punished by the state. The state should not be involved in deciding God-human relationships. Rather, the state should be concerned only with the violation of human rights within the jurisdiction of the human affairs and human relationships.

SOURCE

 

[smaneck]

He commented on the issue more than once, and although his version of events would portray his stance in this light retroactively, the actual comments are much more ambiguous, and certainly bespeak a mindset that can only be called unhealthy.

I would think any conception of an 'ideal' state being one in which literary dissidence carries the death penalty to be 'unhealthy.'

He defended some of that by stating that he was a "new Muslim" at the time, filled with convert's zeal and sufficient honesty to give a straightforward answer.

I don't recall that comment. He wasn't that new of a Muslim. He converted in 1977 and the Rushdie comments were made in 1989. I met Yosuf Islam in 1987 when he came to speak at a university event sponsored by the MSA. Our government won't give him a visa anymore.

Even if we take his later interpretation at face value, however, he's still saying that in an ideal Islamic state, blasphemy ought to be punished by death, as per the Qur'an.

That is correct.

That is not a sentiment I could ever support or tolerate.

Not in this day and age.

 

[smaneck]

Not all Sharia madhab's consider blasphemy a capital crime

An Error Cat Stevens made was that under the Largest Madhab of Sharia (Hanafi) Blasphemy and Apostasy are not Hadud crimes and carry no earthly punishment. Under Hanafi Sharia there would be no punishment for Rushdie.

However, under the Shi'ite Jafa'ari madhab I believe Blaphemy does carry the death penalty.

Woodrow,

I'm not sure all Hanafi jurists would agree with your interpretation of their madhab. Christian monks who stood out outside the masjids an insulted the Prophet in medieval Spain would face the death penalty. That was the Maliki school, but still. I think the Hanafi school doesn't apply the blasphemy laws to non-Muslims, but I'm not sure they would consider Salman Rushdie in that category.
As for the Jafari school, they give the ayatollah's so much latitude, it is pretty much whatever they say.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Woodrow,

I'm not sure all Hanafi jurists would agree with your interpretation of their madhab. Christian monks who stood out outside the masjids an insulted the Prophet in medieval Spain would face the death penalty. That was the Maliki school, but still. I think the Hanafi school doesn't apply the blasphemy laws to non-Muslims, but I'm not sure they would consider Salman Rushdie in that category.
As for the Jafari school, they give the ayatollah's so much latitude, it is pretty much whatever they say.

There is some division among Hanafi Scholars. Primarily with some from Pakistan.

But for the majority they are quite liberal and progressive. Even going back to my ancestors the Lithuanian Tatars (Lietuva Lipkas) (Which did get a touch too liberal)

But I find that in most areas of the world those who claim to follow the Hanafi Madhab agree with this: HERE

My ancestors sort of got a touch liberal, which probably helped lead to their being Exiled, Executed or Converted to Catholicism. My direct family line were among the converts. I simply returned back to what my ancestors were.

Lietuva Lipkas: HERE


http://www.podgorski.com/library/Tatars/Lipka_Tatars.htm

 

[simplegifts]

Any witnesses of Moses PBUH and the burning bush? How about witnesses to Jonah PBUH and being swallowed by a whale and spat out?

You should read the Bible. It will help you understand the Quran, but please only if you will be safe.

Moses was given miracles and Jonah - the men who threw Jonah over board. Then seeing Jonah alive and able to turn Ninevah from their evil ways.

But was what happened to Jonah really a miracle?
Ambrose John Wilson, "The Sign of the Prophet Jonah and Its Modern Confirmations," The Princeton Theological Review (1927)
In the year 1758, a sailor fell overboard from a boat in the Mediterranean and was swallowed by a sea dog. The captain of the vessel ordered a cannon on the deck to be fired at the fish, which vomited up the sailor alive and unharmed after it was struck.

The Annotated Newspapers of Harbottle Dorr: The Massachusetts Gazette, and the Boston Post-Boy and Advertiser, 14 October 1771 [middle column at the top of the page starts with the sentence - "We hear from Edgartown"]
The Boston Post Boy, October 14, 1771 reports that a man Marshal Jenkins was swallowed by a whale and survived.

 

[Rationalt]

Under any situation I'm just not able to understand how that could be justified.

.

That is Islam subscribed by majority of Muslims.Even the sufis (most of them) subscribe to it.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Under any situation I'm just not able to understand how that could be justified.

.

I have no idea how the Shi'ite justify it. I am not Shi'a and don't really know much about their beliefs and practices.

I do not find any Justification for it. However, we are very independent and no Muslim can speak for another. We each have the responsibility to verify all things we believe.

 

[Rationalt]

Death penalty for apostates is supported by both shia and sunni groups.Islamic countries(Sunni and shia) have apostasy rules.

Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is PEW survey 64 percent of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam

 

[Rationalt]

Saudi blogger faces death :

Saudi blogger may face death penalty for apostasy — RT News