Talk:The Satanic Verses/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What about others?

Satanic Verses is just a pathetic attempt to push sales by an average writer. Its frankly bloody boring. It has characters mocking Islamic celebrities as well as non-Islamic celebrities like Gandhi and Nehru. A dog is named Gandhi and a cat is named Nehru!

People seem to think that Rushdie's novel is somehow about Islam. Yes, he uses negatively (supposedly --- Rushdie initially denied it) imagery of prophet as one character in his novel, but the novel has nothing to say about Islam.

Read these 162 customers review on amazon.con

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312270828/qid=1100370442

Even though not all these reviews can be trusted, it will give some general idea about the book.

Now to the second point about apostates. Rushdie is a self proclaimed apostate, but he is not anti-religious like Ibn Warraq. From the interviews that I have seen, he seems more like anti-fundamentalist.

For example, he claims, "Many commentators have spoken of the need for a Reformation in the Muslim world."

Reformation? Anti-religious author like Ibn Warraq (or Taslima Nasreen) claims Islam can't be reformed, and that religion in general is bad. Reformation is not possible, period. So that's a clear distinction between Rushdie and other anti-religious apostates. OneGuy 18:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You following me around or what?

No, I haven't read the novel; I find Rushdie utterly tedious. So I am committing the sin of writing about it just from reading reviews. As I recall, the reviews at the time said that there was a brothel in the story, and the squabbling inmates were all named after Muhammad's wives. Plus a prophet named Mahound, who has a faithless scribe who is corrupting his words, and who is tempted to countenance polytheism.

I'm doing a lot of googling, trying to find the complete text of the fatwa and suchlike. I'll rewrite Zora 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not following you around. You edited the articles already on my watch list. I didn't read the book. I saw it once but it appeared too difficult to read and make sense, and so I didn't waste time on it. But since you seem to be aware of soc.religion.islam, I once read a post by usually a very reliable poster on the book. this post
I usually don't trust anything posted by people on newsgroups or other forums, but the guy who wrote this post was usually the most reliable poster on that newsgroup at that time (years ago). So there is no reason for me to doubt what he wrote.
As for Khmonie, he basically called for killing Rusdie and anyone (any publisher or translator) involved in the book. The fatwa was rejected by most other Muslims preachers, including Al-Azhar University OneGuy 20:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having read many reviews and different opinions, I think I can safely say that it's a gross exaggeration to claim that Rushdie's book is inspired in part by the life of Muhammad. Mahound was only a minor character in the book, and appeared to have been defamed only in a dream of Gibreel Farishta (a bad guy in the novel). Also, this statement in the article:

"The controversy arose over Rushdie's portrayal of Prophet Muhammad as a fallible human character and his confession that he found Islam a sham"

is probably provably false too

Once again ... claims are inserted in the article that are most likely false. OneGuy 21:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm annoyed by people commenting on The Satanic Verses who have never read the book. You obviously do not know what you're saying, and just copy/pasting random quotations that you've found from google in the past 10 minutes hardly makes you an expert on Rushdie's novel.

I have read the book and I still don't know if I have the authority to comment on it. The novel is complex, twisting, and ambiguous. If you had read the story, you would know that while Mahound is not a major character in the book, he does have a profound empact on the storyline. The controversy surrounding how and from who Mahound is acquiring his prophesies is important not only to the meaning behind The Satanic Verses, but also a main reason for the bounty placed on Rushdie's head after writing this novel. The novel- by the way- is amazing.

Seeing that most of the people on this Talk page haven't read the book, I think it's somewhat my duty to chime in. I've read the book (thoroughly enjoyed it, btw), and I'll just give some relevant background. I read it a few months ago, so some details may be sketchy. As I saw it, there are four different parallel narratives being told in the book. One of them is the story of Mahound, though this story is really just a delusional dream of Gibreel Farishta (though I wouldn't call him a "bad guy"). If Mahound is said to be a representation of the prophet Muhammad, then I can only say that he is portrayed on a personal, humanistic level, instead of a as a God-like figure. His scribe, in the novel, indeed twists Mahound's words, and this could be a poke at the authenticity of the Quran, but says nothing as to the Mahound's character.

Again, all of this is in the context of a dream of Gibreel Farishta, whose dreams drip into reality with him thinking of himself as the angel Gibreel or as Mahound.

Also, I think the last line of - "The controversy arose over Rushdie's portrayal of Prophet Muhammad as a fallible human character and his confession that he found Islam a sham." - should be deleted, it seems like an unnecessary conclusion to the issues already discussed previously in the artice. It adds nothing. Jrka 14:21, 14 Nov 2004 UTC

Well, Muslims consider Muhammad a human and fallible, not a God-like figure. So that could not have caused all the uproar. Scriber twisted his words? That can be interpreted in several ways. It's not clear blasphemy. This was never mentioned in the fatwa anyway, or by the rioters, or other complainers. That was not the issue.

I think I am beginning to understand what happened. Another character in the book is satire of Imam Khomeini, who is portrayed negatively in the book. Since 88% of Muslims are sunni, portrayal of Khmonie wouldn't have caused that much uproar. To counter that, Khomeini sympathizers must have started the propaganda that the book is very blasphemous against Muhammad, calls him a liar and his wives prostitutes (the prostitutes in the book are apparently not the wives of Mahound but some other women who use his wives names to attract more customers). Since most rioters never read or understood the book, they were just reacting to these rumors of blasphemy against Muhammad. After the death fatwa by Khomeini, probably other anti-Islamic authors joined in with the usual "the book exposes Islam as false religion" (even though it's just a fiction -- and exposes nothing) and that Rushdie has a right to "expose Islam." Usual stuff.

Now I am pretty sure that's exactly what happened here.

Notice that Iran (Khomeini) is the only country that issued the fatwa. Many far more blasphemous books have been written before and after Rusdie about Islam .... none became such a big issue. OneGuy 14:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary fix

OK, I've removed the stuff tagged as inaccurate, and added the text and time of the fatwa. I think there's still a lot more to be said to make this a real encyclopedia article, but this is at least a temporary fix. Zora 18:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Khomeini is in fact portrayed rather sympathetically

Alright, I can't *prove* this. All I can say is - read the book [start at page one and end at the end!] and judge for yourself. (I have read it 5 times in 12 years; and in fact I have read all of Rushdie's [published] novels more than once.) [his first two novels never got published, as he wrote somewhere - Grimus was the 3rd.] And he does *not* use negative imagery of the Prophet [easy exercise to the first-time reader of the novel - locate the sentence *in the novel* that explicitly says so. hint: snatching insulting terms from the hegemon and using it with pride [i.e. Identity politics]] And that's right, the book is not primarily about religion, though one of its important themes is the nature of Revelation [in one of his essays, SR describes this current of the novel as an attampt to tackle the question - if Revelation does not really reveal God or anything like that, and yet is an authentic experience, then what the hell is it all about? [not verbatim at all - this is a paraphrase, and I read the essay more than 10 years ago.] Except Midnight's Children [arguably], Haroun, The Moor's Last Sigh, and The Ground Beneath Her Feet [arguably], all other Rushdie novels are Greco-Shakespearean Tragedies. Fury most clearly so. Also Fury is his only novel to date which uses neither magic-realist nor science-fiction techniques. [Rushdie was never really magic-realism proper, only used magic-realist techniques - as well as others - he was not bound by one technique. Hence the *limitations* of magic realism didn't limit SR's work [not that his work has no limitations, though!]] It seems none of you have read the book at all! otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to type all this at all, getting increasingly dyslexic with slowly creeping Alzhmeier's and all that. But it is irritating to find people waxing eloquent about something they haven't read.

--- a cosmic citizen, technically from Calcutta India ---

Dear cosmic citizen, it's true that I haven't read the novel. I don't *like* Rushdie's work (though I adore Vikram Seth's). I just tidied the article as an interim measure. Instead of telling us we're all wrong, why don't you add some material to the article? Then we'll copyedit you <g> Zora 06:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many or most?

An anon editor changed several occurrences of 'many Muslims' to 'most Muslims'. I changed it back. There's no way to prove that 'most' Muslims would agree on this. There were certainly lots of NOISY Muslims protesting the novel, but they were outnumbered by the ones who stayed home and said nothing. Since we don't know how the ones who stayed home would have felt, it seems to me that it's a dishonest rhetorical ploy to say that 'most' Muslims felt this way. That's a way of implying that Muslims should agree with the criticisms of the novel. Zora 01:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


ŲI have not read the book yet. Because - it is impossible to buy it! Everyone is afraid of the bandits, yes, they are bandits, those who control now Iran. Do not be afraid of Islam! They are weak, because they have a fear of truth. The fear of controversy is their weak point. It is very similiar to other totalitarian regimes - Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union.

Date of publication

The article currently reads:

"...first published in 1988 and..." in the first line; and "...upon publication in 1989..." in the second line.

My hardcover first edition copy says:

Published in 1989 by Viking Penguin Inc.

Copyright © Salman Rushdie, 1988 All rights reserved

So it's obvious where the confusion arised. Should the article be changed to reflect this, and how? Jp media 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

William Nygaard murderd?

The article on the Muhammand drawings asserts that William Nygaard was shot in 1993 - does this imply a second, successful assassination attempt after the first in 1991? Toby Douglass 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

William Nygaard is still alive.

We may as well drop the spoilers

This article doesn't seem to deal with the plotline very much at all when compared to other articles on novels. To be honest you get more from the blurb on the back. Should we not be focussing more on the books content and less on the controversy surrounding it??

It wouldn't be a notable book if it weren't for the controversy. I don't think anyone believes that it is a classic of world literature. Zora 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

i do trueblood 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

redundant title?

satanic verses redirects here and there's no mention of a disambig page. should i move page? Frenchman113 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Satanic verses should NOT redirect here. There's a separate article on the supposed Satanic verses removed from the Qur'an. Could someone have been playing tricks? I'll check. Zora 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
NO, it's alright. You type in Satanic Verses and you get the article re the Qur'an. You have to click on the top to get here. Zora 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Nunhunh

I looked at the title you gave the section and just assumed that it was a general attack. When I looked at your revert, I saw that it was indeed a timeline of events related to the novel. I apologize for being tired and cranky and not reading thoroughly. I did change the section title, however -- just call it Timeline. Readers can infer censorship, and probably will. Zora 10:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Improvements needed please

Hi all. Can someone who has read this book please include specific examples as to why this book was offensive to Muslims? The article is completely void of this. Thanks. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible move?

Move to The Satanic Verses to move the (novel). No other The Satanic Verses. Skinnyweed 21:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there is Satanic Verses. I think the (novel) tag is crucial. Zora 15:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
But Satanic Verses and The Satanic Verses are completely different in both content and, more importantly, name. And also, The Satanic Verses redirects to The Satanic Verses (novel) anyway. Skinnyweed 20:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

satanic verses controversy

i propose to take out the whole controversy section out of the rushdie article, only leaving a short summary and link to this article. most of the information is included in the timeline. obviously i also want to remove the link in this article's intro. i think it's into this article that all that belongs. one thing that is missing in the timeline but mentioned in the rushdie article is cat stevens alleged support for the fatwa. i would like to add that to the timeline with a link to cat stevens article, where it is explained in more detail.

btw do we really need links for words like japanese, muslim, 1988, myth, blasphemous, norway? or should we stick to the words that are central to the article (like fatwa, ...) trueblood 11:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, I don't think that's a good idea. It's hard to understand why there was a controversy if you don't know what the novel was about. It's as if I suggested that we divide the Osama bin Laden article into an article about Osama and an article about the controversies that surround Osama. Plesae DON'T! Zora 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

wait, just to make sure we are on the same page. i am proposing to take the satanic verses controversy section, which is currently part of the Salman Rushdie article off that article and add whatever information it contains to this article The Satanic Verses (novel). as mentioned before most of it is already here, except this cat stevens thing (in the timeline section). afterwards it would be the rushdie article that refers to the verses article not the other way round. my objective is to prune the rushdie article off all the stuff that is also in this article do you really object to that. trueblood 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Zora, maybe there was a misunderstanding? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, if another event like this happened in 2006, an article dedicated to it would be created in no time. It's only the fact that it happened several years ago that the event doesn't get its own article. Skinnyweed 20:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. But that's not really a compelling reason, is it? I think the public perception of both the novel and (to a lesser degree) of Rushdie himself is so inseparably intertwined with the controversy that it really makes more sense to have the controversy topic within one of those articles (preferably the novel) than in a separate article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i am bringing the stuff from the rushdie article over to the timeline, afterwards some stuff can be shortened again, for instance everything related to the bounty seems a little bit confused. but when everything is together in one article the confusion is more evident and can be brought into a consistent form. trueblood 09:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ibn ishaq

the novel is not just about the namegiving satanic verses episode but presents a version of the early years of islam. are you saying that rushdie based all of this on the writings by ibn ishaq (could well be), did rushdie say so or are you just guessing? --trueblood 06:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) i reverted the edit because i am really not convinced that rushdie based his book in ibn ishaq but open to be corrected.--trueblood 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

satanic verses in quran

what about the satanic verses in quran in i think 50th chapter. and Where has the section on satanic verses(novel) controversy moved.nids 17:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)