Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Benefit Behind Salman Rushdie Fatwa

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, kamyar said:

As far as I know the Islamic verdict about "sabb of nabi (insulting prophet)" would be death penalty. So the main benefit behind this fatwa is the same benefit behind other Islamic rules, praying, fasting, hajj, etc. And that's taking our responsibility. 

Why should we care as long as we are acting in accordance with Islam? They defame Islam for many other rulings. Should we rescind them all? They live in their own world. They eat and drink many things we don't, they have same sex marriage and call others who oppose it extremist, they regard (ghesas) death penalty as an inhumane act, while we sentence rapists to death, they make them president. 

Also something about their hypocrisy:

Many other things can be said about this issue, but regarding the benefit behind it, as I said, it's "doing our duty".

This "philosophy" comes off as radical in that it involves killing people for say.. drawing the Prophet Muhammad. 

And what you have done in the above post is you have equated rape or murder with something like drawing a picture. One items destroys life, such as murder. Drawing a picture on the other hand, is something that nobody really cares about. And realistically, nobody would even know, nor care who Salman Rushdie is, if not for this kind of "radical philosophy". As a matter of fact, most people don't know or care otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses it was indeed a very disingenuous effort on his part to wrongfully depict the Holy Prophet in such a manner which is indeed devoid of any truth whatsoever

It still had side-effects. It is frequently used in non-Muslim rhetoric, and it solidifies in the non-Muslim's mind that Islam is barbaric, Iran is "terrorist regime", free speech good, Western values

This is a provocateur type thread. Recommend locking.

Guest Badman riddims
18 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

This "philosophy" comes off as radical in that it involves killing people for say.. drawing the Prophet Muhammad. 

Even from a secular perspective these insulting pictures are harmful. They are anti-Arab depictions. They are dehumanizing pictures. It is hate speech. 

21 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

And what you have done in the above post is you have equated rape or murder with something like drawing a picture.

Maybe to you it is simply "drawing a picture" with no further consequences. Believe it or not, lives are at stake. All these drawings do is promote terrorism both ways. It loosens up Western populations to be anti-Muslim. The first step is to make people accustomed to seeing everything Islamic in a negative light. For the Western audience, these depictions reinforce Western values and denigrate non-Western values. Notice what is at the heart of all such drawings, it's presentism. It loosens up Muslims, including those living in the West, to feel increasingly anti-West. 

When you start thinking about it's impacts on a global scale, you will see how it influences the bigger picture, such as geopolitics, e.g. making your populace more accepting of going to war with X Muslim-majority nation, and it creates the same effect for the citizens in Muslim nations to accept war against non-Muslim nations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Western standards on free speech are overrated anyways. They support free speech for vilifying Muslims with racist propaganda that is comparable to that of Jews in Nazi Germany or Muslims during the crusades, but they don't support the 1st amendment rights of Muslims in New York, or anywhere else really. Many Americans support racial profiling of Muslims in America, for instance.

 

The 1st amendment does not permit incitement. If you want proof, I dare you to wear a Timothy McVeigh shirt in Oklahoma.

Edited by MuhammadFreeman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
11 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

@kamyar Brother thank you for you valued input 

Can you kindly address this point as well.

I believe the issue of the antagonist has been squared away, but what about these individuals?

Salam before writing Satanic verses Salman Rushdi wrote other fictional books that was good for education of Islam to children that even his books after Iran revolution translated to persian/ Farsi but after writing satanic verses all of his previous books gathered from bookstores of Iran .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/13/2020 at 2:23 PM, Mohammad313Ali said:

@kamyar Brother thank you for you valued input 

Can you kindly address this point as well.

I believe the issue of the antagonist has been squared away, but what about these individuals?

Obviously the fatwa applies to those who are aware of the content, not those who don't know what they are doing.

Quote

إنا لله و انا الیه راجعون

به اطلاع مسلمانان غیور سراسر جهان مى‏رسانم مؤلف کتاب «آیات شیطانى» که  علیه اسلام و پیامبر و قرآن، تنظیم و چاپ و منتشر شده است، همچنین ناشرین  مطلع از محتواى آن، محکوم به اعدام مى‏باشند. از مسلمانان غیور مى‏خواهم تا در  هر نقطه که آنان را یافتند، سریعاً آنها را اعدام نمایند تا دیگر کسى جرأت نکند به  مقدسات مسلمین توهین نماید و هر کس در این راه کشته شود، شهید است ان‏شاءالله. ضمناً اگر کسى دسترسى به مؤلف کتاب دارد ولى خود قدرت اعدام او را ندارد، او را به مردم معرفى نماید تا به جزاى اعمالش برسد. والسلام علیکم و رحمة الله و برکاته.

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/n21878/سرویس_های_اطلاع_رسانی/جهان/مبانی_تصمیم_گیری_امام_خمینی_در_مورد_فتوای_ارتداد_سلمان_رشدی

We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions.

 

On 4/13/2020 at 2:38 PM, iCenozoic said:

This "philosophy" comes off as radical in that it involves killing people for say.. drawing the Prophet Muhammad. 

And what you have done in the above post is you have equated rape or murder with something like drawing a picture. One items destroys life, such as murder. Drawing a picture on the other hand, is something that nobody really cares about. And realistically, nobody would even know, nor care who Salman Rushdie is, if not for this kind of "radical philosophy". As a matter of fact, most people don't know or care otherwise.

"You see the hair, and we see it's curvature"! Let's not be superficial. It's not just drawing a picture. It's mockery and insult. In this case, mocking and insulting the most respected entity for millions of people, against the one they believe to be "the best creature of God" and just sick individuals with ugly hearts would commit such heinous crimes to provoke millions of people all around the globe. This is not as unimportant as you think.

Many question Islam and its rulings and we try to answer just like now that you opposed this fatwa and the philosophy behind it and I am responding. So we embrace discussion. However, insulting someone like our beloved Prophet won't be tolerated, as anyone does such thing in this very website would be banned to provide a morally immune atmosphere -- which is logical and very good. We can't neglect the negative impact of paving the ground for the Holy and divine figures/ scriptures/concepts to be attacked and mocked. 

In the meanwhile, I am almost sure there are more sick people in the world who like to do such things, and the reason they don't is their fear of consequences. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, kamyar said:

However, insulting someone like our beloved Prophet won't be tolerated, as anyone does such thing in this very website would be banned to provide a morally immune atmosphere -- which is logical and very good. We can't neglect the negative impact of paving the ground for the Holy and divine figures/ scriptures/concepts to be attacked and mocked. 

In the meanwhile, I am almost sure there are more sick people in the world who like to do such things, and the reason they don't is their fear of consequences. 

Being banned from a website is a bit less concerning than being killed. You can't morally equate the two. Nor could we equate the act of someone conducting the ban, versus someone conducting murder.

The truth is that it wouldn't be a morally immune environment in the event that someone murdered another man for insulting their Prophet by say drawing a picture of said Prophet.

Which reminds me of the gospels.

Just beflre Jesus was captured by the romans, a roman was injured in the battle to capture Jesus. And Jesus lifted the roman soldier and healed his injury. He healed the man who hated and attempted to destroy Him. Upon Jesus' later crucifixion, Jesus too called on our Holy Father to forgive them [for they knew not what they had done] as they destroyed Jesus.

The greatest commandment was that we love one another (and Love God) and Jesus never taught his followers to murder those who insulted Him, and most certainly not through drawing cartoons of Him. The greater immoral act would be if the apostles had murdered those that insulted Jesus, not the act of the insults themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
9 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Which reminds me of the gospels.

Just beflre Jesus was captured by the romans, a roman was injured in the battle to capture Jesus. And Jesus lifted the roman soldier and healed his injury. He healed the man who hated and attempted to destroy Him. Upon Jesus' later crucifixion, Jesus too called on our Holy Father to forgive them [for they knew not what they had done] as they destroyed Jesus.

The greatest commandment was that we love one another (and Love God) and Jesus never taught his followers to murder those who insulted Him, and most certainly not through drawing cartoons of Him. The greater immoral act would be if the apostles had murdered those that insulted Jesus, not the act of the insults themselves.

it's just an imaginary story of Christians that has no value for us , they just created this story to show him all forgiving God on cross.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's just an imaginary story of Christians that has no value for us , they just created this story to show him all forgiving God on cross.

Some people say that the story of Noah's flood is imaginary as well. But look at the point of what I am saying.

Scripture isn't always about the story, rather we have to look at the substance and meaning behind the passages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
7 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Some people say that the story of Noah's flood is imaginary as well. But look at the point of what I am saying.

Scripture isn't always about the story, rather we have to look at the substance and meaning behind the passages.

I believe those honorable prophets needed to act as such due to them being carriers of a very critical message, as for Ayatollah Khomeini, he was in the political sphere and needed to ensure that any attack on the apostles of God is strictly condemned or else it will escalate and religion will be no more then a mockery. Have you seen the Netflix series depicting Jesus ((عليه السلام)) as a drunkard and homosexual? heartbreaking.

Lets examine some of the teachings of the Bible in Deuteronomy 13:16 with context from the study bible 

Idolaters to Be Put to Death
5Such a prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he has advocated rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way in which the LORD your God has commanded you to walk. So you must purge the evil from among you. 6If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7the gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the earth to the other),…

Another Translation

Deuteronomy 13 New King James Version (NKJV)

Punishment of Apostates

13 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk[a] after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall [b]put away the evil from your midst.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I believe those honorable prophets needed to act as such due to them being carriers of a very critical message, as for Ayatollah Khomeini, he was in the political sphere and needed to ensure that any attack on the apostles of God is strictly condemned or else it will escalate and religion will be no more then a mockery. Have you seen the Netflix series depicting Jesus ((عليه السلام)) as a drunkard and homosexual? heartbreaking.

Lets examine some of the teachings of the Bible in Deuteronomy 13:16 with context from the study bible 

Idolaters to Be Put to Death
5Such a prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he has advocated rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way in which the LORD your God has commanded you to walk. So you must purge the evil from among you. 6If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7the gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the earth to the other),…

Another Translation

Deuteronomy 13 New King James Version (NKJV)

Punishment of Apostates

13 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk[a] after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall [b]put away the evil from your midst.

There are many laws of the Old Testament that are not carried out by followers of Chist. Dietary laws, laws related to animal sacrifice, laws related to practicing magic, laws related to circumcision etc.

It's generally considered that when Jesus died on the cross, he fulfilled these laws and left us with what he described as the greatest commandment of loving God and loving one another. People are not saved nor damned for whether or not they're circumcised or whether or not they eat certain foods or whether or not they stone apostates ...

But rather they're saved through the grace of Christ. And there are several places throughout the New testament where Jesus and the apostles speak in contrast to Old Testament laws under this context. If you would like, I could share some passages.  Ah who am I kidding, I'll just make another post.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I believe those honorable prophets needed to act as such due to them being carriers of a very critical message, as for Ayatollah Khomeini, he was in the political sphere and needed to ensure that any attack on the apostles of God is strictly condemned or else it will escalate and religion will be no more then a mockery. Have you seen the Netflix series depicting Jesus ((عليه السلام)) as a drunkard and homosexual? heartbreaking.

One other thing that I wanted to say before quoting the New Testament...

Well two things.

One thing is that, we are in the world but not of the world. Just because someone insults someone else, doesn't mean that murder is the appropriate response.  And as I said in my last post, this is quite clearly the opposite of what Jesus taught.

But someone else pointed out that perhaps some of us aren't Christian and maybe believe in the stories of the New Testament.

But quite frankly, in my opinion, we should let akhlaq guide choice in religious belief. Rather than let religious beliefs guide choice in akhlaq. You and I both know, inside us, that it would be really a horrid act for us to murder someone for drawing a picture, be that picture of Jesus, Muhammad or any other prophet. Murder is something objectively destructive that cannot be repaired or undone.

But even the most terrible picture can be erased or drawn over top of or replaced. Because it's just a picture.

And I hate to do it, but this too is a common theme in the New Testament. Jesus even loved Judas, who betrayed Him and lied to Him. Jesus, in His journeys, over and over again, chased after those who were lost, those who had "strayed" from Him, those who denied Him, those who spat on Him. Those who mocked Him etc. Over and over again, Jesus went after them, sought them out and rescued them.

But ultimately, they were alive to be rescued. They all drew their own "pictures" and Jesus said that It didn't matter. He said let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.  

And I don't think we should believe in this idea "because the Bible says so". I think it's worth following because it's reasonable. Because our ahklaq tells us that this is how it ought to be. Perhaps this is the reason Khamenie has prevented the fatwa from being carried out, because perhaps he too knows that murder is counter productive and really would be a horrid response to some goofball who decided to write a comic book with offensive pictures. I'll get some passages in a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

@iCenozoic I guess its difficult for some to admit that Ayatullah Khomeini was wrong in prescribing this Fatwa, that is why I started this thread in hopes of truly discussing this matter without being apologetic, not holding any double standards, and most importantly not giving examples of where one wrong justifies another.

The points I made earlier are clear and so is my position, however, I sought to entertain this discussion by perhaps being on the defensive for his ijtihad. It's really difficult at times to reconcile such issues, you see Ayatullah Khomeini is seen by not only me but millions of others as the pride of Shia's the one who's revolution continues to be at the forefront of the stance against any evils be they of the political or even spiritual sense.

I don't know if you have read the Forty Hadith's by Ayatullah Khomeini where he truly discusses the nature of man, the vices of the soul, and how one can essentially create a repelling fortress with the spirit against any satanic energies.

That is why although I am a bit on the edge when it comes to justifying the Fatwa I am still very inclined to hear what those in the defense of it have to say, the reason being is that a man of such spiritual ascension, with his apprehension of the sanctity and importance of human life and preserving it, wouldn't just out of the blue, 'due to a picture' issue a ruling which calls for blood to be shed.

The reverence this man had for his people, for others, the unbelievable amount of forbearance he held in the trifling years of patience he underwent were near inhumane. It is very difficult for me to conclude that there are no ulterior explanations which could possibly enlighten us all in regards to this Fatwa. In a matter of minutes one can conclude that such a Fatwa does not benefit in the religious or political sense in anyway whatsoever.

A man of Khomeini's religious and spiritual apprehension with understanding of the political spectrum mustn't have miscalculated this when the majority of his life was based on a very strict, deliberate, and to the point manner.

Yes, I disagree with this Fatwa based on the information presented, but really it does not add up with consideration of the aforementioned points. 

I also understand that such an approach my be deemed a bit dogmatic, or perhaps one that seeks an explanation that tends to a confirmation bias, due to the reverence held for him. My position is not that and I hope it is clear. I just can't piece together a man with his intellectual and spiritual caliber, with the same faculties of reason he used to address his nation and express in his literature, would then issue such a ruling.

But I must say the arguments are dwindling and not in his favor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

@iCenozoic I guess its difficult for some to admit that Ayatullah Khomeini was wrong in prescribing this Fatwa, that is why I started this thread in hopes of truly discussing this matter without being apologetic, not holding any double standards, and most importantly not giving examples of where one wrong justifies another.

The points I made earlier are clear and so is my position, however, I sought to entertain this discussion by perhaps being on the defensive for his ijtihad. It's really difficult at times to reconcile such issues, you see Ayatullah Khomeini is seen by not only me but millions of others as the pride of Shia's the one who's revolution continues to be at the forefront of the stance against any evils be they of the political or even spiritual sense.

I don't know if you have read the Forty Hadith's by Ayatullah Khomeini where he truly discusses the nature of man, the vices of the soul, and how one can essentially create a repelling fortress with the spirit against any satanic energies.

That is why although I am a bit on the edge when it comes to justifying the Fatwa I am still very inclined to hear what those in the defense of it have to say, the reason being is that a man of such spiritual ascension, with his apprehension of the sanctity and importance of human life and preserving it, wouldn't just out of the blue, 'due to a picture' issue a ruling which calls for blood to be shed.

The reverence this man had for his people, for others, the unbelievable amount of forbearance he held in the trifling years of patience he underwent were near inhumane. It is very difficult for me to conclude that there are no ulterior explanations which could possibly enlighten us all in regards to this Fatwa. In a matter of minutes one can conclude that such a Fatwa does not benefit in the religious or political sense in anyway whatsoever.

A man of Khomeini's religious and spiritual apprehension with understanding of the political spectrum mustn't have miscalculated this when the majority of his life was based on a very strict, deliberate, and to the point manner.

Yes, I disagree with this Fatwa based on the information presented, but really it does not add up with consideration of the aforementioned points. 

I also understand that such an approach my be deemed a bit dogmatic, or perhaps one that seeks an explanation that tends to a confirmation bias, due to the reverence held for him. My position is not that and I hope it is clear. I just can't piece together a man with his intellectual and spiritual caliber, with the same faculties of reason he used to address his nation and express in his literature, would then issue such a ruling.

But I must say the arguments are dwindling and not in his favor.

All the best in your investigation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/14/2020 at 11:23 PM, iCenozoic said:

Being banned from a website is a bit less concerning than being killed. You can't morally equate the two. Nor could we equate the act of someone conducting the ban, versus someone conducting murder.

I was talking about the similarity of the languages (when one uses the language of the discussion the response is discussion and when one uses the language of the insult the response is punishment, legally), I wasn’t talking about the extent.

On 4/14/2020 at 11:23 PM, iCenozoic said:

Just beflre Jesus was captured by the romans, a roman was injured in the battle to capture Jesus. And Jesus lifted the roman soldier and healed his injury. He healed the man who hated and attempted to destroy Him. Upon Jesus' later crucifixion, Jesus too called on our Holy Father to forgive them [for they knew not what they had done] as they destroyed Jesus.

There are also many things like this happened during the life of Prophet Muhammad, but it doesn’t mean we should be indifference. We can’t ignore the bad affects of this indifference in the West and as a result the huge amount of insult to Jesus and his mother, sadly.  

18 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I guess its difficult for some to admit that Ayatullah Khomeini was wrong in prescribing this Fatwa

 Brother/sister, this fatwa is according to the Islamic rulings and is accepted by many, if not all, of the scholars. If you want others to oppose this fatwa, actually you want them to oppose an Islamic rule.

Let me explain one thing here. Sometimes some things are basically wrong and brain undoubtedly condemn them, for example, saying “all the people with height longer than 2 meters should be killed”. No righteous group and faith would issue such verdict and no verdicts like this would be issued by a righteous faith. However, here the question isn’t about the base of the issue (basically we agree that these insulters here are committing a very bad action and deserve punishment), but the issue is about the extent of the punishment and where we should draw the line. Who should determine these limitations? Religion, like in other cases that we obey its limitations (its limitation in the number of raka’at in prayers, the time for fasting, the punishment for the rubbery, rape etc.).

Instead of evaluating others based on what they think and say about the religion, why do some do the opposite and evaluate the religious verdicts based on others’ opinion?

Don’t assume these regimes that played a kolibazi and opposed this fatwa and even cut the diplomatic ties with Iran, did all these things out of their love for humans’ life or to defend freedom of speech. They have showed and proved they don’t care for these things and one can provide tens of examples for this.

Apart from their hypocrisy, another thing that proves they are not in such a position that their opinions to be mattered is that they have always been in ifrat (extremism) or tafrit* (laxation). From regarding the marriage as a non-sacred thing to creating and promoting outlandish form of marriage --which aren’t even marriage. From “don’t defend when slapped in the face ” to “kill them all”, “bomb them all” and “nuke them all” attitudes.

It’s sad to see many, who don’t seem to be bad people themselves, are affected by these trends.

*What is the best translation for ifrat?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
9 minutes ago, kamyar said:

this fatwa is according to the Islamic rulings and is accepted by many, if not all, of the scholars. If you want others to oppose this fatwa, actually you want them to oppose an Islamic rule.

Why did Ayatullah Khamenai suspend it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 4/12/2020 at 3:54 PM, Mohammad313Ali said:

When Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses it was indeed a very disingenuous effort on his part to wrongfully depict the Holy Prophet in such a manner which is indeed devoid of any truth whatsoever pertaining to his sublime character, unfortunately when questioned he would remark that Bukhari was used as a reference for his vile act. Now I understand as painful as it may be to lay idle as one man insults, slanders, and seeks to defame a figure which over 1.7 billion individuals revere greatly, however, I as a layman and Shia Muslim see that there served no benefit from the fatwa which called for the death of not only Salman Rushdie, but all those who aided in the configuration, translation, and in anyway shape or form contributed to the completion of the book. 

I see this as an issue which was downright counter intuitive, for it served to highlight to the world that as Muslims we do not tolerate any form of criticism (although dishonest). I am confident that it would have been a more beneficial and greater approach to the matter in not only the eyes of the public, but Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as well, if instead of issuing a fatwa which would depict us as individuals who are against free speech to instead use that same method of media in producing a book which would show in every way shape or form how the Prophet is nothing like what was depicted in the satanic verses.

Sharing the same battlefield as the enemy and in a more civil and equitable means, for if they sought to draw their pens and defame us with falsehood we can indeed draw our pens of truth and vanquish whatever feeble attempts they may have had in their dishonest endeavors. With the publicity that the Islamic Government had at the time and the profound thinkers who have published phenomenal works, could they not had done such a thing and publicized a book which annihilates the foundation which was structured around the Satanic Verses.

Now one may say it would have affected the unity behind the Muslim Ummah as it could be a sort of stab at Bukhari, but I am sure the capability of the intellectuals could conjure a message which seeks to convey the pure sense of Islam without attacking the literature of the Sunni brothers. Instead of simply publicizing the book even more and depicting the Muslims as individuals who are intolerant, at a time when tolerance is especially needed for the good image of Islam, considering the book was written outside the jurisdiction of the Islamic state which is a very important point.

Blood is not something which I consider to be cheap, and the sanctity of human life within Islam is greatly considered. I don't think that mere translators whose job was simply to translate books many of whom they were ignorant to the context of the book and perhaps saw it as another fictional tale like any other fictitious book which was far from any political sense. To call for their blood to be shed righteously in Japan and elsewhere was inconsiderate to innocent blood. This fatwa did not benefit Islam and the Muslims and I am prepared to read attentively your remarks.

@Mahdavist @A_A @habib e najjaar @313 Seeker @AmirioTheMuzzy @Ashvazdanghe @The Green Knight

What would the Prophet (S) have done?  Did he (S) not forgive the Meccans even though they were idolaters who used to mock him (S) and who used to persecute those who followed him (S)?

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
27 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

What would the Prophet (S) have done?  Did he (S) not forgive the Meccans even though they were idolaters who used to mock him (S) and who used to persecute those who followed him (S)?

 

Different times. Separate means to the same end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

So  what end did fatwa serve?

That is the purpose of this thread, to find out. Hopefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team

I would not argue whether the fatwa was correct or mistake but by putting a death penalty to Rushdie, Sayyed Khomeini indirectly defended the vile and fabricated narrations of Bukhari. 

I agree with countering Rushdie's book with one from shia sources. This would have not only rejected Bukhari and the narrators but would also have clearly demonstrated the difference between two sects in revering the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the minds of common sunnis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Really, it ought to be easy to find a source or a passage or law that was cited for the fatwa. Or are fatwas not cited?

This might be a useful read:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41211892?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A5867188ddb7193239ee9f319b6ea0f7d&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It's notes the offense of sabb and shatm. "The case of a dhimmi".

"If anyone insults me, then any Muslim who hears this must kill him immediately."

on page 11, the document describes cases in which people were killed for insulting the Prophet by the Prophets decree.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Interesting perspective discussing this issue, as well as the book more broadly. Here's an important excerpt that might help you all:

Quote

As such, it is not strange that the enemies of Islam, especially the inimical Orientalists, have publicized this tradition and reported it with a great deal of embellishment. We have also witnessed that recently they have forced a writer, coming from an evil lineage, to author a book under the title of The Satanic Verses and, by means of extremely derogatory and vile expressions in the course of a fictitious and make-believe story, not only question the sanctities of Islam but also exhibit sacrilege towards the great prophets (like Ibrahim), who are looked upon with great reverence by all the Divine religions.

And again it is not strange that the English text of this book was translated with astonishing swiftness into different languages and distributed all over the world. And when Ayatullah Khomeini R issued his historical fatwa declaring the author, Salman Rushdie, to have become an apostate and thereby deserving to be compulsorily killed, there arose in Rushdie's favour, on the part of the colonial governments and enemies of Islam, a tidal wave of support, so great that the world had never seen the like of it before.

This amazing phenomenon revealed the reality that Salman Rushdie was not acting alone, and the issue is much more than just authoring an anti-Islamic book. It is, in fact, a conspiracy that has been chalked out by the Western colonial powers and the Zionists with the objective of bludgeoning Islam - a conspiracy which they support seriously and in great earnest.

But the firm resistance and perseverance of Ayatullah Khomeini ((رضي الله عنه).) in his fatwa, the continuation of his policy on the part of his successors and the global acceptance of this historical fatwa by the general Muslim public served to foil the conspiracy of the conspirators.

And until this date, as we write this, the author of the mentioned book leads his life in total concealment and is scrupulously protected by the colonial governments; it appears that he shall be forced to lead the rest of his life in this fashion and probably he might be killed by his very mentors to extricate themselves from this humiliation.

https://www.al-islam.org/180-questions-enquiries-about-islam-volume-two-various-issues/43-what-myth-gharaniq-or-satanic

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
On 4/17/2020 at 12:51 AM, Mohammad313Ali said:

Why did Ayatullah Khamenai suspend it? 

he didn't suspend it  but some people are trying to ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Posted (edited)
On 4/17/2020 at 7:08 AM, eThErEaL said:

So  what end did fatwa serve?

to keep you muslim.

On 4/17/2020 at 6:13 AM, eThErEaL said:

What would the Prophet (S) have done?  Did he (S) not forgive the Meccans even though they were idolaters who used to mock him (S) and who used to persecute those who followed him (S)?

 

it was his authority also Meccanss repented & accepted Islam but after conquering Mecca prophet Muhammad (pbu) ordered excution of some individuals but these individual saved by people like Umar & Uthman that they helped them because they were from their tribes or their friends   to escape execution  that just  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) could excute 2 or 3 of them that Abdallah ibn Sa'd that was like Rushdi saved from excution by Uthman that you call him one of Sahaba .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah_ibn_Sa'd

Tulaqa' Group
Abu Sufyan and others who were embraced in the mercy of the Prophet (s) were called Tulaqa' (meaning "the freed") after the saying of the Prophet (s) when he (s) said, "What do you think I would do with you?" They said, "Goodness! You are a benevolent brother, son of a benevolent brother." The Prophet (s) said, "Go for you are the freed."

Elsewhere, the Prophet (s) said,

"The freed from Quraysh and the released from Thaqif, some of them are friends of some in this world and the hereafter."
People regarded this title as mean and considered it a kind of ill-fame. 'Umar did not consider Tulaqa' and their children deserving caliphate and reminded it to the people of the Six-member council. In a letter to Mu'awiya, Imam 'Ali (a) mentioned this and called him among Tulaqa'.

Exemptions from Amnesty
After the Prophet (s) ordered for granting the amnesty for all, he (s) exempted some people from it and ordered that anyone sees them anywhere should kill them, even if they are hidden under the curtain of Ka'ba. However, not all of them were killed and more than half of them received safe-conducts.

Men: 'Akrama b. Abi Jahl, Safwan b. Umayya, 'Abd Allah b. Abi Sarh, 'Abd Allah b. Khutal, Huwayrath b. Naqidh, Maqis b. Subata or Dubata, Aslam b. Zab'ari, Wahshi b. Harb (who martyred the holy Prophet's (s) uncle, Hamza b. 'Abd al-Muttalib but received amnesty).

Women: Hind bt. 'Ataba (Mu'awiya's mother), Sarah, maid of 'Amr b. 'Abd al-Muttalib, two maids of 'Abd Allah b. Khutal called Qariba and Faratna.

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Conquest_of_Mecca

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

While throwing out some papers . . .

On 4/12/2020 at 9:01 PM, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

He even got knighthood from the Queen in 2007, I am convinced that his book was Western backed.

 

On 4/12/2020 at 9:04 PM, hasanhh said:

l didn't know this. Probably because it was not widely advertised?

June, 2007 Knight Bachelor

 

ADDED: B.Liar was PM, so Rushdie was selected as a political statement.

"Who decides honors?" Not the Queen.  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19407451 

. . . l found this: http://news.smh.com.au/world/iran-angry-over-rushdies-knighthood-20080701-2zwm.html  entitled "lran angry over Rushdie's knighthood" 

IRl "harshly condemns awarding" this to Rushdie and "considers this a clear insult to the belief and sanctities" of Muslims.

ln 2001, lRl said the issue "finished", and will not pursue the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

I never read this book and I am not interrested to do that in future. However I have the sentiment that this fatwa make a lot of publicities for this rushdie than anything else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
57 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I never read this book and I am not interrested to do that in future. However I have the sentiment that this fatwa make a lot of publicities for this rushdie than anything else. 

l read the controversial part and a Syrian friend of mine's father came for a visit and he also read the paragraph for himself. l wasn't Muslim back then so my friend had to explain it all to me.  lt did not 'contribute' to the book and it wasn't well written.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

I asked the admins to ban me for a week so that I could study for my finals. During that time, I made an excellent guest post here, but it seems as though  the post was never approved. I think I made the post on April 13th. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
14 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

I asked the admins to ban me for a week so that I could study for my finals. During that time, I made an excellent guest post here, but it seems as though  the post was never approved. I think I made the post on April 13th. 

Mods did not approve the post because the guest  username that you chose was questionable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
  • Advanced Member

  

On 4/13/2020 at 12:31 AM, hasanhh said:

No matter how much someone wishes to pontificate, there is no need for this subject.

I came to this tread in order to find arguments in support of Imam Khomaini in an internet discussion, but I was not able to find any.

 

On 4/18/2020 at 7:56 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:
On 4/17/2020 at 4:38 AM, eThErEaL said:

So  what end did fatwa serve?

to keep you muslim.

It does a lousy job at that. No matter what reason Rushdi might have had for writing what he did it does not justify wanting him killed. That fatwa makes it difficult to defend Islam and Khomaini. It figuratively cuts my tongue out. The only think that Fatwa has done is to deliver arguments against Iran, Muslims and Islam. It makes me sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
16 hours ago, Revert1963 said:

That fatwa makes it difficult to defend Islam and Khomaini.

Salam Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) gave this Fatwa for defending  Islam & prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) even it costs damage to himself & revolution  that I believe  his Fatwa made it easier to defend  Islam because  it shows that muslims , specially  shia Muslims are ready to sacrifice  everything even their life  for defending Islam  & prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) but recent radical  reactions by radical  Wahabists  in France forged by them to weaken  his Fatwa & defending  of Muslims from Islam  to portray Muslims as Takfiri people  that act violently on their own wrong  understanding  from religion instead of asking for solution  from wise Islamic  leaders like Imam  Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

I believe  his Fatwa made it easier to defend  Islam because  it shows that muslims , specially  shia Muslims are ready to sacrifice  everything even their life 

Was Khomainis life ever in danger during that incident? I think that most people would say that it was Salman Rushdi who was in danger of sacrificing  everything even his life for freedom of speech. Just like the french school teacher. The only thing Khomainy sacrificed was the reputation of him self, Iran, The Islamic revolution, Islam, Muslims and even the reputation of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). As a matter of fact he did this before the takfiris.

How do you suppose I defend this in an internet discussion?

Edited by Revert1963
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sura 47. Muhammad:

Aya 1. Allah has destroyed the deeds of those who disbelieved and prevented from Allah’s way.

Aya 2. And those who accepted faith and did good deeds and believed in what has been sent down upon Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon him) – and that is the truth from their Lord – Allah has relieved them of some of their evils and refined their condition.

Aya 3. This is because the disbelievers followed falsehood and the believers followed the Truth which is from their Lord; this is how Allah illustrates the examples of people to them.

Aya 4. So when you confront the disbelievers, strike at their necks; until when you have slain them in plenty, tie them up firmly; then after that, you may either release them as a favour or take ransom, until the war lays down its ordeal; this is it; and had Allah willed He Himself could have taken revenge from them, but this is to test some of you with others; and Allah will surely never waste the deeds of those who were killed in His way.

Aya 5. He will soon guide them (towards Paradise) and make them succeed.

Aya 6. And He will admit them into Paradise – they have been made familiar with it.

Aya 7. O People who Believe! If you help the religion of Allah, He will help you and will stabilise you.

Aya 8. And for those who disbelieve – may they be ruined, and may Allah destroy all their deeds!

Aya 9. This is because they disliked what Allah has sent down – He has therefore squandered all their deeds.

Aya 10. So did they not travel in the land to see what sort of fate befell those who preceded them? Allah poured ruin upon them; and for the disbelievers are several like it.

Aya 11. This is because Allah is the Supporter of the believers, whereas the disbelievers do not have any supporter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Suppose Salman Rushdi had been killed by some one acting on the Fatwas of Khomaini. Would he have become a Shahid and gone to paradise? And where would the assassin have gone?

Edited by Revert1963
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/15/2020 at 12:11 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's just an imaginary story of Christians that has no value for us , they just created this story to show him all forgiving God on cross.

Almost, Bro. Actually, when the Bible was compiled in the 4th Century C.C., all the info the bishops had said there was the Ascension, as does Quran. But like there was ten versions of Matthew remaining after manuscripts were submitted and some eliminated, the Bishops and all did not know if the crucifixion story was accurate. Yet, they recognized that this version was the most significant difference between themselves and the heretics (what we would call  the sick-in-the-heads, Mani and others).

This is why the early Church insisted on this story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...