Skeleton of a mullah in the closet, hahahaha
Punjabi Kurhi
Amy
You stated:
Skeleton of a mullah in the closet, hahahaha
Punjabi Kurhi.
Sholay says:
Oh! so because it happened to you, you assumed that it happened to everyone else.
Now I understand your logic of thought. Very interesting.
Sometimes it's good to talk about the past.
If ever you want to talk to someone, we are all hear to listen and advise.
You must forget the past and concentrate on the Future!
[quote]
Originally posted by amy:
**Rushdie is a modern day bokhari, fabricating the religion.
Overwhelmingly angry response to that email is a clear evidence that a lot of people had bathroom privilages during their educational process.
Have a good day !
**
[/quote]
you should be saying "Rushdie is a friend of Rashad Khilafa"
We oughta be Changez like, don't we?
While everyone is picking up on poor amy, let me add something to the topic.
It is amazing that so much has been written about Salman Rushdie's satanic fiction yet no one has analyzed possible motives or tried to explain where the ideas might have come from. Most news reports have focused on Khomeni's fatwas - which have been universally condemned. Although occasional indirect support for the fatwas by some writers and commentators has existed. For instance, Yaqub Zaki, an ethnic Scotsman, tried very hard to convince the world that the reaction of extremist mullahs and those of Khomeni were understandable and indeed were no different from what has happened in the past and could happen in the future in both theocratic and secular states.
It is an undeniable fact that Penguin Publishers and Rushdie have made a lot of money from the book - perhaps most of it is attributable to the publicity surrounding it. It is impossible to believe that more than a small percentage of purchasers have actually read the book. The average English reader has not only to enter Rushdie's psychotic trance but also has to put up with the book's tedious literary style incorporating sly-remarks in words and names that mean little to him. Who knows the meaning of ekdumjaldi, tinkas, and so on? To make any sense the reader also has to be familiar with characters from Hindu mythology and Islamic history and tradition. Obviously there was no sense to the book unless the intention was to mock and defame.
It is interesting to note that the title Satanic Verses is a plagiarism from "Muhammad at Mecca" (1953) by the Scotsman Professor W. Montgomery Watt. What a revelation! Indeed, one could be forgiven for believing that Rushdie's book - the parts relating to the Prophet were actually written by Professor Montgomery Watt. The similarities of presentation are uncanny. One difference is that Watt's book is a serious one subject to academic review and scrutiny. But, his book is known only to a handful of scholars. It is ironic that none of the vociferous Muslim ulema have picked up on these points made by Professor Watt in 1953!. Rushdie, on the other hand can argue that his book is only a novel - a fiction that cannot be debated.
It is stranger indeed to note that Rushdie did not acknowledge the principal source for his book other than an oblique reference to those who must remain anonymous. Such a blatant omission, coupled with the provocative title, the subject matter and subsequent events, is difficult to explain.
Possible motives behind the book are two fold, First, to hurt Iran's sensibilities as it had failed to bow down to Western might and influence in the face of overwhelming pressures. Second, to besmirch the good reputation and name of Islam by exploiting the inevitable over-reaction of the Khomeni regime. Predictably, the book has succeeded in exploiting the fundamental departures from true Islamic values and traditions that have been invented by Muslim fundamentalist groups. Such fundamentalists have only themselves to blame.
Personally I once lend the book from the library, but after few pages did felt worthy to turn further.
Firstly, I would like to suggest to the Muslims that the correct method of dealing with whatever they (correctly or incorrectly) perceive as offensive is to provide a rebuttal against it in a decent and ethical way. An effective rebuttal, at the correct time, would not only reduce the effects of the attack, to a great extent, but would also bring the hidden “facts” (as they see them) to light. The method adopted by the Muslim leaders and clergy, on the contrary, is that of protests and demonstrations. This method – if closely observed – not only is absolutely ineffective, keeping in view the modern day free communication facilities, but actually promotes the propagation and spread of the idea being protested against. Many people, who probably would never have noticed the publication of a new book, are informed of the publication through these protests, demonstrations and expressions of anger. This has exactly been the case (in Pakistan) with the sale and reading of “Satanic Verses”. Many people – whom I personally know, who rarely read any book – specially arranged for the illegal smuggling of the book (as it is banned in Pakistan), or a copy of it, through their friends or relatives and read it with great interest. All this was only due to the clamor against the book. I think Mr. Salman Rushdie (the author) and his publisher should give a lot of credit to the Muslim clergy and leadership for boosting the sales of the book. I am sure that if a survey of the readers of the book is conducted, a large percentage of them will submit that they were instigated to read the book by the Muslim protests and clamor against it.
If the Muslims thought that the book was offensive for them and felt that it would, in any way, damage them or the standing of their religion, a better solution, in my opinion, would have been to sponsor the preparation of an effective rebuttal. This would have had a positive effect in two ways. Firstly, their protests would not have worked as propaganda in favor of the book; secondly, whatever (negative?) affects the book might have had on its readers could have been nullified by an effective rebuttal, which could have greatly helped the propagation and understanding of Islam and Muslim history.
Finally, I would also like to suggest to Muslims, in general, that abuse and clamor has never proved to be an effective response against an intellectual attack, however false it might be. If we believe that some one has misrepresented historical or religious facts, a logical response would be to present the facts, as we see them, in an equally effective manner. In case we do not have an answer to the allegations put forth, then, at least, we should keep our mouths shut, if we do not have the courage to accept those allegations to be true. We must not forget that our unethical behavior and immoral responses will, ultimately, prove to be more damaging to the cause and of Islam and the impression that we leave on the world than all the books written against it.
As far as the authors and publishers are concerned, it should be aware to them what ultimately matters is not the number of books they sell, but the contribution they make to world literature. If, in the ultimately analysis, their contribution is positive, they shall be remembered in the life of this world as well as rewarded in the hereafter. On the other hand, if there contribution is negative, they may sell a large number of books, but the world will only remember them as businesspersons, rather than those who contributed anything positive to literature. They should not forget that hurting the feelings of any group of people – whether they be Jews, Christians, Muslims or any other ethnic or religious group – even in the name of “quality literature” can by no means pass as ethical. The world society is already filled with such enormous hatred toward each other that any further contribution in the wrong direction may so easily prove disastrous – and this might all be in the name of “quality literature”.
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited June 13, 2001).]
[quote]
Originally posted by muslima84:
*i was interested in knowing what he wrote in there. *
[/quote]
In answer to your original query, Ahmed Deedat wrote something titled, 'The Satanic Verses Unexpurgated' in response to Salman Rushdie's book. I'm not going to post any links here, but if you honestly want to know what rushdie wrote, then u'll find Ahmed Deedat's article pretty easily using a search engine. But just as a sidenote, Ahmed Deedat doesn't leave anything out, perhaps with good reason as that is the purpose of his article, to point out what it was that was so wrong with what rushdie wrote, so just be wary:) I know that when Deedat used to give this lecture he'd warn everyone beforehand of the offensive nature of the language,etc.
Anyways, hope that helps you.
[This message has been edited by Girl from Quraysh (edited June 13, 2001).]
Hey everyone… just ignore something and it’ll
go away… if she/he annoys you… then don’t respond…
simple right…
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hoonh.gif
** Mu Hu Hahahahahaha!**:hoonh:
"Quote the Mu,“NeverMu!”
Y2Mu,
Ignoring something and hoping it'll go away isn't always good, and its not necesarily right either.
But the manner in which you react is important, as Partypooper outlined in his post.