In article <1993Apr14.131032.15644@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote: >  > It is my understanding that it is generally agreed upon by the ulema > [Islamic scholars] that Islamic law applies only in an Islamic country, > of which the UK is not.  Furthermore, to take the law into one's own > hands is a criminal act, as these are matters for the state, not for > individuals.  Nevertheless, Khomeini offered a cash prize for people to > take the law into their own hands -- something which, to my > understanding, is against Islamic law.  Yes, this is also my understanding of the majority of Islamic laws. However, I believe there are also certain legal rulings which, in all five schools of law (4 sunni and 1 jaffari), can be levelled against muslim or non-muslims, both within and outside dar-al-islam. I do not know if apostasy (when accompanied by active, persistent, and open hostility to Islam) falls into this category of the law. I do know that historically, apostasy has very rarely been punished at all, let alone by the death penalty.  My understanding is that Khomeini's ruling was not based on the law of apostasy (alone). It was well known that Rushdie was an apostate long before he wrote the offending novel and certainly there is no precedent in the Qur'an, hadith, or in Islamic history for indiscriminantly levelling death penalties for apostasy.  I believe the charge levelled against Rushdie was that of "fasad". This ruling applies both within and outside the domain of an Islamic state and it can be carried out by individuals. The reward was not offered by Khomeini but by individuals within Iran.   > Stuff deleted > Also, I think you are muddying the issue as you seem to assume that > Khomeini's fatwa was issued due to the _distribution_ of the book.  My > understanding is that Khomeini's fatwa was issued in response to the > _writing_ and _publishing_ of the book.  If my view is correct, then > your viewpoint that Rushdie was sentenced for a "crime in progress" is > incorrect. >  I would concur that the thrust of the fatwa (from what I remember) was levelled at the author and all those who assisted in the publication of the book. However, the charge of "fasad" can encompass a number of lesser charges. I remember that when diplomatic relations broke off between Britain and Iran over the fatwa - Iran stressed that the condemnation of the author, and the removal of the book from circulation were two preliminary conditions for resolving the "crisis". But you are correct to point out that banning the book was not the main thrust behind the fatwa. Islamic charges such as fasad are levelled at people, not books.  The Rushdie situation was followed in Iran for several months before the issuance of the fatwa. Rushdie went on a media blitz, presenting himself as a lone knight guarding the sacred values of secular democracy and mocking the foolish concerns of people crazy enough to actually hold their religious beliefs as sacred.  Fanning the flames and milking the controversy to boost his image and push the book, he was everywhere in the media. Then Muslim demonstrators in several countries were killed while protesting against the book. Rushdie appeared momentarily concerned, then climbed back on his media horse to once again attack the Muslims and defend his sacred rights. It was at this point that the fatwa on "fasad" was issued.  The fatwa was levelled at the person of Rushdie - any actions of Rushdie that feed the situation contribute to the legitimization of the ruling. The book remains in circulation not by some independant will of its own but by the will of the author and the publishers. The fatwa against the person of Rushdie encompasses his actions as well. The crime was certainly a crime in progress (at many levels) and was being played out (and played up) in the the full view of the media.