Setanta wrote:Miss Flyer, i did indeed read your post. But you fail to demonstrate that all Muslims unilaterally accepted the fatwah. A clue to your overreaching condemnation is to be found in your own assertion that open opposition can be dangerous. I would submit to you that most Muslims simply keep their mouths shut.
I think it proves it. Why would they keep their mouths shut? I say when we discuss unilateral acceptance of a killing fatwa vs. keeping their mouths shut, that their reasons are one of two: either agreement with the fatwa or fear that the fatwa would then touch them.
Why does anyone need to be afraid to speak their mind in a free country? Isn't it our duty to help them resist religious domination? I will say it again because I think it might be the key for improving the general relationships between Muslim and non-Muslim. If the everyday Muslims living in the Western World would, en masse, publically denounce the tradition and threat of fatwa, they would find a much easier time with the non-Muslims of their community.
We would never give Catholics "a pass" if some bishop issued a universal decree that Mr.X is to be killed by any good Catholic because he disrespected the Bible. Why would anyone believe we ought to do so for the Muslim community?
As for proof that most Muslims agreed with the Rushdie fatwa, I offer two...
first, that there were 100 mostly non-American Muslim authors and artists who finally came out in support of Rushdie. It was a little late... it didn't happen until after the Japanese translator of the Satanic Verses was knifed to death. (from good ol' Wikipedia: "In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed in Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven guests died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator. Even popular musician Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) indirectly yet infamously stated his agreement with the fatwa. [...] Islam confirmed in a British television documentary that he wasn't against the death sentence..." and wished it had been Rushdie himself who was being burned in effigy.)
Even with this one supportive publication, many expressed their offense by the work but at least they were willing to open their mouths. As Moroccan composer, Ahmed Essyad said: ""To Salman Rushdie, so that, as an artist, he can write what I disagree with."
Quote:The expression of solidarity by the 100 writers and intellectuals from a dozen Muslim countries takes the form of a book called "For Rushdie," organized and published in France by Editions la Decouverte. Contributions were collected between October 1992 and June 1993. (Piffka note: That's three and half to more than four years after the fatwa was issued.)
To coincide with publication, Mr. Rushdie, who has spent most of his time in hiding since the fatwa, or death sentence, was issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran in February 1989, expressed thanks for this "anthology of blows struck in the fight against obscurantism and fanaticism."
In an open letter to the French daily Liberation, the 46-year-old novelist said that "ever since the beginning of the whole sad affair of 'The Satanic Verses,' I have felt saddest about the relative silence of the writers and intellectuals of the Muslim and Arab world."
And
here is what the
American Muslim magazine had to say on Rushdie and what they think of the challenge of integrating Muslims into Western culture (ie. not much):
Quote:The last person on earth whom Muslims would be prepared to listen to on such issues is Salman Rushdie... Yet he wrote in the Guardian (3 November) "Let's start calling a spade a spadeĀ
", meaning that this is indeed a war against Islam, and "the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which their countries' freedom will remain a distant dream." Perhaps this is what is meant by a Muslim reformation: secularism, not scripturalism. But to what extent should Islam be modified for it to be deemed acceptable? Could somebody please provide a list of all appropriate changes that we should make in order to become worthy citizens of this new moral order? Of course, I jest. Let's call a spade a spade. Islam doesn't need to take on board secularist-humanist principles, this would never be sufficient, for secularist-humanists have problems with basic religious beliefs such as God and accountability in the Hereafter. It is not the legal periphery of Islam that is the problem, it is its spiritual centre. As we have seen in Britain, the adoption of such an approach has led to the demise of religion itself.
The call for a Muslim reformation is in one sense a call for a liberal Islam. The subjugation of Islam to the heart's command may provide opportunities for the emergence of liberal Islam, but it is the same hermeneutic that leads to an Islam that advocates violence. Rendering the interpretation of law to the heart's desire may not lead to the desired outcome. In fact, the present political climate tilts the balance heavily away from any conciliatory interpretation of Islam, quite the opposite. But the line that establishes the Western moral position (if there is such a thing) is in a perpetual state of motion. Are all others condemned to play catch up from now on? Or will they be permitted to establish themselves as alternatives? If others are to play catch up, then maybe one way that they could try to break ahead is by asking what is post post-modernism and making sure they get there first? Ultimately though, Islam has a stronger historical claim than liberalism, having lasted longer while establishing itself across a wider spectrum of cultures. Islam doesn't require a reformation; liberalism needs to de-centre itself.
Your resistance to agreeing there is de facto domination and repression of women by the adherents of Islam is a sad thing. To put this off as merely cultural practices flies in the face of reality throughout the Muslim world. That there are small pockets of secularized Muslims in an American university near you doesn't change the way of the real world of Islam, a world which is actively resisting secularization. That world is sexist, repressive and filled with medieval punishments for women in every single Islam-based country. If there were just one reason to be less than tolerant of Islam, that would be it in a nutshell.
