My roommate got the book Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie and I just happened to read a few pages and frankly, I was shocked and insulted.
Has anyone else read this book and has any comments to offer?
All I can add is that the book is not only insulting to Muslims but to many others including the Queen of England!
The Islamic Propogation Centre (UK) have a free booklet that discusses these in detail - I remember reading it some years back.
14 odd years after it was written, the book is quite harmless in comparison to the way islam is being attacked today.
Sad.
The book is a buch of disgusting lies.. the author (rushdie) has taken advantage of mistakes that muslim historians have been making.. Tabari for instance mentions the "satanic verses".. which holds no truth whatsoever..
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Destino: *
The book is a buch of disgusting lies.. the author (rushdie) has taken advantage of mistakes that muslim historians have been making.. Tabari for instance mentions the "satanic verses".. which holds no truth whatsoever..
[/QUOTE]
BUKHARI - HOLY book of sunnis/wahabis insults the prophet more than salman rushdie.
Which is the ORIGINAL satanic verses?
the short history of Rushdie…
I have not read the book, but heard of it, any way no point.
so salman was the only son of muslim parents in india. his parents were, i think were thakhur, for british india, u know some of those high jobs given by british people to keep indians happy. yeah so his parents thought that if we send him to britian for education, he might get a really good job in india… so salman was sent to britian for education at the age of 9 i think… i am not really sure coz someone told me this… yeah so when he arrived in Britian, of course at that time chritianity was taught at school compulsary. So Salman had not much knowledge of Islam since he was sent to Britian at the age of 9.
So when priests at his school realised that he is a son of muslim parents, and at the age of 9, they had the golden oportunity to teach what they have been doing for past centuries… so he was taught that mohammad was a paedophile 
, coz he amrried aisha at the age of 9. These things are taught even today to christians and have been taught for centuries, too keep people away from islam so they dont revert to islam.. and that is y when many people read about true islam are surprised and want to know more,and that for allahs grace they convert when they find out what is the truth… so Salman was taught all those crap, so that is all expressed by him in his book.
I am not really his simpathiser but then u cannot blame him 100% also. and also Iran should not have given the fatwa about killing him, as that has made the book more popular, and more and more people read it.
May allah give him hidayat, and forgive him…
Allah hafiz
from google serching this web shows news about this book.
Salman Rushdie, Satanic Verses, Fatwa, Free Speech - Page 181
SATANIC VERSES
The infamous verses in the Qur’an where Muhammad was said to have been inspired by Satan concerning three of the idols worshipped by the Arabs, and was later said to be abrogated. Muhammad was said to have said one day to the Quraish, “Do you see Al Lat and Al Uzza, and Manat the third idol besides? They are the Sublime Birds, and their intercession is desirable indeed!” The famous traditionalist Tabari wrote, (Annals, vol I,3, p. 1192), “When the Quraish heard these verses, they were full with a great joy, and they prostrate themselves, Muslims and non Muslims.” The two last sentences were abrogated after a while, because they were in contradiction with the unity of God, and were replaced by: “What? Shall you have male progeny and God female? This were indeed an unfair partition.” (Maxime Rodinson, Qur’an, LIII, The Star, 19-20)
The Satanic Verses
Few books have had the publicity that surrounds The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. This brief article seeks to provide some background material for the book’s title and for reasons why even the title might disturb Muslims. Islam strongly opposes idolatry, polytheism, associating anything or anyone with God. In fact, Islam’s creed in Arabic begins with a negative: Not is there a god except God. It contrasts sharply with the contention of Muhammad’s Arab contemporaries that God had associates. Some of these associates are even mentioned in the Qur’an, among them three female deities: al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. Each had a shrine in separate places not far from Mecca in Arabia, where Muhammad was born and began his mission. They were even considered to be daughters of God!
The Qur’an, as it now reads, obviously rejects these deities. But - and here comes the issue - did the Qur’an and Muhammad always reject them? While Muhammad was in Mecca, his followers were few and the movement grew painfully slowly. According to old Muslim source materials (writings of at-Tabari and Ibn Sa’d) the pagan leaders of Mecca, aware of Muhammad’s frustration, at one point ventured to tell Muhammad that his movement might make better progress if he would only recognize their deities. Thereafter Muhammad received another revelation of the Qur’an from Jibril (Gabriel), the angel of revelation. It reads:
Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza
And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)
Then, originally, these verses (later recognized as the satanic verses!) followed:
These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)
Whose intercession is to be hoped for.
The cranes whose intercession was recognized were, of course, the three deities. The same Muslim source materials tell us that after the revelation of these and the remaining verses of this section of the Qur’an was completed, Muhammad, his followers and the pagan Arabs all prostrated. Tensions eased, reconciliation was at hand, and all were delighted.
But Muhammad soon retracted the reconciliation - how soon is not clear. For the account continues that Jibril informed Muhammad that Satan had used Muhammad’s desire for reconciliation with the pagan leaders to insert into the revelation of God the verses about the interceding cranes, otherwise called “the satanic verses”. The verses which follow, not the satanic verses, serve as the proper sequence to 53:19,20 (above):
Are yours the males and His the females?
That indeed were an unfair division! (53:21,22)
In other words: When you Arabs have sons (whom you prefer to daughters!), how unfair of you to say that God has daughters! The idea of a plurality of gods or goddesses or sons or daughters of God is ridiculous. God alone is God. The three goddesses are false. Two other passages are considered to have reference to the compromise between Muhammad and the Arabs, and Muhammad’s eventual rejection of it:
And they indeed strove to beguile thee (Muhammad) away from that wherewith We (God) have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend. And if We had not made thee wholly firm thou mightest almost have inclined unto them a little. (17:73,74)
The following passage is intended to comfort Muhammad:
Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise;
That He may make that which the devil proposeth a temptation for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened - Lo! the evil-doers are in open schism. (22:52,53)
On the basis of these verses especially, the designation “The Satanic Verses” arises. It is not our intention here to defend Rushdie and his book. On the other hand, it is clear that Rushdie did not invent the satanic verses. Moreover, it would seem that Muslims of earlier generations were content to accept that satanic verses could somehow be insinuated into a prophet’s message from God, even into the Qur’an, that God could abolish the satanic verses, and that, as the following passage suggests, God could replace even a verse of His own revelation with a similar or better verse of His own:
Such of Our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things? (2:106)
In fact, Islamic theologians of earlier ages carefully sorted out which Quranic passages were abrogating and which were abrogated. Today, many Muslims deny that God could abrogate or change His Word in any way or form. Ironically, they sometimes interpret Qur’an 2:106 (above) to mean that the Qur’an has abrogated the previous Scriptures of Moses and Jesus - despite the fact that the Qur’an clearly attests that these Scriptures also are the Word of God and therefore, presumably, unchangeable! How much more odious, then, to suggest that at least for a period of time satanic verses actually formed a part of the Qur’an! For many Muslims it is simply inconceivable that Muhammad, even under the severest pressures, would (perhaps even could) compromise with his Meccan enemies, and still more that Satan somehow could “whisper” his thoughts into the substance of God’s holy Word, the Qur’an. That is why even the idea of satanic verses in the Qur’an shocks some Muslims. But, to repeat, Rushdie did not originate the satanic verses. Nor did Jews, Christians or other non-Muslims. The sources for the satanic verses, at-Tabari and Ibn Sa’d, are reputable Muslim sources for early Quranic commentary and Islamic history. Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find.
RUSHDIE, SALMAN
An Indian-borned Muslim(?) writer living in Britain, who wrote the famous “Satanic Verses”, a fictional account of a prophet who wrote scriptures through suggestion by the devil, very similar to the issue of the SATANIC VERSES of Muhammad. Muslims all around the world were offended by his writing. In 1989, a fatwa was issued by the Iranian supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, calling for Muslims to kill him. As a result, he had been in hiding for the last decade. In Sep, 1998, the Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami, distanced the government from this fatwa, but Iranian ayatollahs maintain that this fatwa is irrevocable. The Tehran Times said: “The Iranian government’s policy in respect of the fatwa is the same, and there is no change.”
An Iranian foundation, Khordad Foundation, offered $2.5 million to anyone who killed the author after the fatwa was given. It later added another $300,000 in October, 1998 after Khatami’s statements. The leader of this foundation, Ayatollah Hassan Saneii, is the representative of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeinei after his death. The Parti Islam in Malaysia, for example, says that
A fatwa cannot be rescinded unless a higher authority can offer a different interpretation. Since the death of Imam Khomeini in June 1989, there has not emerged another authority with greater or even equal stature to rescind the fatwa. In any case, it is based on sound Islamic principles and is supported by Qur’anic commands as well as numerous ahadith. Muslims throughout the world, of all Schools of Thought, support the fatwa. On September 29, three senior Ayatullahs in Iran reaffirmed the fatwa and said that it cannot be rescinded. (“For Rushdie, It is Not Over Yet!”, Harakah, Oct 26, 1998)
…
the man isa cuttter kaffir and may his soul burn in hell when he dies eventually, his actions have led to him not deserving any sympathy 
I do not understand the reason of 'law of blesphemy', from one side Allah is almighty, from other side he has given this law to humans to decide and utilize.....something imbalanced.
very corect about alla decide and man decide. why peapul decide? then all mulla komaeni etc fraud pover and do fatwa like mafia peapul! so alla shoud ban mulla peapul for fatwa etc.
also, one person saying bad for salman rushdy go england for study...Jinna also do england for layer. why Jinna go is good but Salman go is bad? may person saying all go england, jinaa also, bad? only mulla say so!
^
and jinnah is a religious symbol for muslims??? 
Everyone, fear Allah. The only reason we were put on this earth was to worship Him and Him alone.
Tom, because Jinnah didn't insult the Prophet? Makes sense to me why he's good and Rushdie isn't :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hum Sa Ho To Samne Aaye: *
Tom, because Jinnah didn't insult the Prophet? Makes sense to me why he's good and Rushdie isn't :)
[/QUOTE]
Read about Jinnah. A pork eating, alcoholic, who abhorred the five times namaj and mullahs was great grandson of a hindu convert to Islam( his great gradfather converted to Islam for mysterious reason - from "freedom at midnight" by Lapierre). He married a Parsi( a non-book religion) girl; He was more "modern" than Mushtafa Kamal Pasha and for that matter any Turk or Egyptian. He was advocate of a pluralistic society and wanted hindus to stay back in pakistan. He was all for "personal freedom" and personal thinking should not be captive of any Imam issuing fatwahs.
How much of his ideas were followed and acted upon, I do not need to say! ( Try comparing Pakistan with Turkey). Follow his teachings and there would not be thread like this on GS!
Peace and Love!
na na na! I only say Jinna as exsample for one more person that also study in englan like salman rushdie…not as relgyoon symbal. Becase I reading in many place Jinna Pakistan hero father but not good muslim 0 so not symbal.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hum Sa Ho To Samne Aaye: *
Tom, because Jinnah didn't insult the Prophet? Makes sense to me why he's good and Rushdie isn't :)
[/QUOTE]
When Salman Rushdie insulting prophet? Artickel here itself saying a) only fiction story b) showing propfet furst say about trinty dream and changing - only saying this truth I reading in many places. so why saying what prophet said insulting?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TomSawyer: *
When Salman Rushdie insulting prophet? Artickel here itself saying a) only fiction story b) showing propfet furst say about trinty dream and changing - only saying this truth I reading in many places. so why saying what prophet said insulting?
[/QUOTE]
Actually this is a good point.
The REASON is the clergies do not want the muslims to QUESTION and/or CRITICIZE Islam & the prophet or the quran in even the tiniest details because they know that it will open up a whole can of worms.
Indianteen, you would be the last person I would ask to get accurate information on Jinnah.
And Tom, did you read the book yourself? I did, and I really do think it was insulting to the Prophet.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hum Sa Ho To Samne Aaye: *
Indianteen, you would be the last person I would ask to get accurate information on Jinnah.
[/QUOTE]
My friend, You did not get the point of the post. I wanted to highlight his philosophy of "personal life/freedom". Ofcourse he was not a devout muslim; But it didn't lessen the weight of his feelings/ideas. He would not have cared about such things, if it would have happened in his life time. Then why not to take a clue from him and be tolerant and not side the fatwah issuing mullahs.
Then whatever I said was not my personal opinion. It's all taken from history books!
I hope my point is conveyed.
Peace and Love!
Freedom at Midnight in a try to uphold the western perception of Gandhi jee as the saviour and deliverer of indian nation, has tried its best to present Jinnah as a stubborn two faced person. Reality is that he was the wisest among them all, who snatched a country out of the claws of Congress and British and he did all of it on his own..
What I don't get is why so many Indians are bent upon proving Jinnah as an immoral man? This is a personal experience. I mean get a life please. And who wrote the history books you've been reading? Care to share the names of the authors?
I am tolerant to an extent when it comes to religion but this book crossed my limits of patience. Is it that hard to understand?