All a bit strange, why would a guy presumably trying to stay under the radar have a fake ID with that name? Might as well have used Saddam bin Laden.
Salman Rushdie attacked on stage in New York
- Thread starter HookedOnAPhelan
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Terrible news. Great man Salman Rushdie
It's called The Bell Curve. Murray is a co-author. Richard Hernstein is probably more important to the work, but since Murray is the only living of the two, it falls on him to defend it from universal odium.
Rushdie news is horrifying. The religion of peace indeed.
In portuguese, the name he picked means "will kill".
Here we go again...
I've seen a lot of responses, will try to answer some of them here. Without offending the Shiite community I don't see their teachings in the true fold of Islam (they don't follow the 3 Caliph's before Ali). So no, I don't think Khomeini is Islam. The Qur'an and Hadith are Islam. I follow the Qur'an and Hadith. And in the Qur'an and Hadith what this guy did is not allowed in Islam.
As for throwaway comments by colodo and Thierry mainly, lots of debasement that I don't want to get into.
To paraphrase Pablo: here I don't want to go again.
Again, religion is the common denominator. There's no away around this. It's impossible to divorce religion from attacks such as this along with the cartoons / school curriculum in Europe. It simply cannot be done.
To some extent it depends on whether the perpetrator is acting in accordance with his religion or not. Or can be said to do so in accordance with his interpretation of that religion or the religious group he is affiliated with.
But religion is the springboard. Sure it might be a perversion of a religion, but one has to be part of that religion to pervert it. Talking platitudes doesn't change that.
I don't disagree with that at all. Personally I think monotheistic religions are inherently completely bigoted which breeds a intolerant culture which is why I find it bemusing that simply disliking the worlds soon to be biggest religion stamps you with bigoted label of islamophobia as if you don't like at all you must have got it wrong.
Last edited:
Not to mention that all religions are just completely perverted forms of whatever they originally were anyway. The Jesus of the new testament who preached the virtues of poverty and ascetism would spin in his grave at the ostentation of the Catholic church through most of history and things like the prosperity gospel. It can be moulded into absolutely anything, up to and including the exact opposite of the original message.
I don't think religion gets to wash its hands of any blame for something like this because the nutter in question might not fully subscribe to every tenet of whatever the feck the mainstream orthodoxy happens to be at this point in history.
Before getting too deep, according to the Quran and Haddith Salman Rushdie should be stoned to death because he went from being a Muslim to being an apostate. It's very clear in Islamic Fiqh that anyone who does that should be executed and there's no argument about it. Go and ask any credible Islamic scholar if Rushdie would be executed in an Islamic State for rejecting Islam after being born into a Muslim family, he flat out would be. Your local imam may lie to you and say he shouldn't but anyone following the Fiqh will tell you the truth.
You don't follow Quran and Hadith at all. You don't read them otherwise you'd know you're talking untruths.
I appreciate you mansplaining my religion to me and covering bases if the imam 'lies to me'. Since we've both our minds up no point discussing further.
The irony of someone trying to complain about 'mansplaining' when both the Quran and Hadith state you can rape the female slaves you have in your possession. When the Hadith state Muhammed commited genocide against a tribe, tortured their leader in order to find his wealth and then got angry with Bilal because he let the leaders daughter see this. He then later raped the leaders daughter. This is all in your hadith. How about Aisha being 9 when their marriage when their marriage was consumated according to your hadith. Would you care to mansplain those hadith to me?
You don't follow the hadith or quran, you just lie about them.
The two of you may want to take this chat to the religion thread.
Little bit off-topic, but here is the central argument of a book I read a while back on how Muslims have understood the so-called Satanic verses:
On the one hand, people who don't like Muslims will leap on this to bash the religion.
On the other, people will try to claim that the people who do this misinterpret the book as if, there isn't that sort of stuff in there.
On the other, people will try to claim that the people who do this misinterpret the book as if, there isn't that sort of stuff in there.
Interesting.
A little pointed in your first assertion. It’s probably how I changed it above.
isn't the irony that no one is ever aware of the satanic verses until someone attacks rushdie because of it? radicalized people create more publicity for the thing they hate than anyone else.
Is the book any good?
Depends on who you ask. For highbrow people it's very good.
It’s always been a muddled area to be honest, at any point in the timeline. The first recorded biographies make no mention of it either (ibn Hisham, ibn Ishaq) but then it is mentioned by at-Tabari (a bit later). Even the Middle Ages ulema were divided. Ibn Taymiyyah was probably the highest authority who believed it happened at that time with Ghazali on the other side.Little bit off-topic, but here is the central argument of a book I read a while back on how Muslims have understood the so-called Satanic verses:
Not if Tom Cruise has anything to say about it!
In that regard, the author of the above book writes:
“The Satanic verses incident appears in two recensions of the sīrah as taught by Ibn Isḥāq: the Rayy recension of Salamah b. al-Faḍl, and the Kufan recension of Yūnus b. Bukayr…It does not appear in Ibn Hishām’s (d. 218) edition of al-Bakkā’ī’s (d. 183) Kufan recension (what is generally called the Sīrah of Ibn Hishām).”
He then goes on to show that al-Tabari sourced his account of the incident by transmission via Ibn Ishaq -> the above named Salamah bin al-Fadl and -> one other (a Muhammad bin Humayd).
"In this attack, we do not consider anyone other than Salman Rushdie and his supporters worthy of blame and even condemnation," the spokesman said during his weekly press conference in Tehran.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62546469
Salman Rushdie: Iran blames writer and supporters for stabbing
Iran having a normal one, I see.
Iranian media =/= Islam
Do people quote the Daily Mail and Daily Express when pointing out the flaws of Christianity?
It is not "Iranian media". It is the state spokesperson.
And the person who issued the fatwa was Ayatollah Khomeini. The religious leader, the supreme leader of Iran.
Not a random low level politician or priest. There is a huge difference.
Not a random low level politician or priest. There is a huge difference.
It's not really hard to look up what the consensus is on the punishment for being an apostate. ThierryFabregas already touched on this above. So no its not a "this has nothing to do with Islam moment".
Khomeini is certainly not a figure to be dismissed in this, but it is generally accepted that his ruling was made outside the normally accepted procedures according to mainstream Sunni and Shi'i doctrine, in which the accused should be tried and given the opportunity to defend himself and repent. That Khomeini issued his ruling without regard to the standard process suggests his motives were basically secular*, and most likely concerned his desire to exert Iranian leadership and authority in the Islamic world at a moment when he had just exposed Iranian vulnerability by agreeing to a truce with Iraq. It's also likely that he heard about a section in the novel in which a figure quite clearly based on him is portrayed in an unflattering light.
*(edit): should add, I don't think Khomeini himself would have conceived of his motives as secular, or that he would have understood a secular/religious distinction to even exist.
"Generally accepted" by whom? Not by the State of Iran, obviously.
And if I am not mistaken, the government of Iran is an Islamic theocracy, which means that the "State" and the "Islam" is basically the same thing in Iran.
By the ulama who have acted as guardians of the Islamic jurisprudential tradition for centuries.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is the offspring of a very particular set of ideas concerning the nature of Islam and the modern state with their origins in modern Iranian history. Not only has that set of ideas found little currency in the broader Islamic world beyond places like southern Lebanon and Iraq, it has always faced opposition in Iran itself, not just from the general population but from large sections of the ulama. Khomeini's ideas were considered radical by many mainstream Shi'i ulama before he seized the state, and although the prestige associated with the revolution helped popularize them further, they remain contested to this day.
i think this was his motivation. the novel makes a caricature of him personally.
I can imagine that Rushdie flying to Iran to stand trial for being an ex Muslim and satirising Muhammed was never ever going to happen even if Khomeini offered it.