Muslims get upset about everything and anything. Don't know the details about the satanic verses, but it was something to do with them thinking it was blasphemous. But, geez, what isn't these days with the muslims?

I've read the book, have it in pdf format. It seems pretty boring to me the same as "DaVinci code", may be because I'm not a literazzi though.

Judging from commentaries the controversy was caused by parts of SV that parody episode in life of Mohamed described by Al-Tabari when Shaitan casts a false revelation on the Messenger of God's tongue, which he later repels. That would be Sura an-Najm (Star) 53:19-22 and Sura Hajj (Pilgrimage) 22.52-53

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:


Surely one of the millions of Muslims that read it, before enthusiastically anticipating his murder, might be able to tell us. They are very sharp afterall.

Yadda- where did muhammed claim to be 'tutored by satan'?

quote? reference?

Yadda- please stop speaking down to me. I'm not retarded.

as for independent investigation- like you said- so much to do, so little time.

I'm currently doing my phd- so I don't have the time to look up every single piece of information you post into these forums. I find out what I can with the time I have.

the whole concept of a forum is that people exchange information and views, so please stop acting like I am somehow requesting something bizarre by asking you to back up the things you say with a reference. especially something so big as 'muhammed was tutored by the devil'

ok? great.

Here are The satanic Verses. The highlighted part of text later was deleted.
Quote:

an-Najm 53:19-22

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 5:12pm:



Quote:

(The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan)

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 5:45pm:


I gave original references. Did you check them?

Quote:


I agree with this nonsense? Not bloody likely.

It's all a load of bollocks, there's absolutely no evidence at all that supposed verse was ever part of the Qur'an, it's nothing more than a fantasy of Rushdie and his supporters.

There was another part of the Qur'an? Interesting, do tell...

Try to keep it historical none of this nonsense about it being destoryed and we only know about it by some obscure writings, or it was found in a building in Yemen, and only 2 German scholars are allowed to view it. Please something realistic.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 7:11pm:


I'm sure you are correct about modern flags but the book that quote came from was published in 1952(?), which means that the research was done even earlier but as I said I agree anyway.

As far as Allah and Allat are concerned it is reminiscent of the Archaic period in history of ancient Greece when religious deities of matriarchal society were giving way to patriarchate ideology. The same thing actually was happening earlier in Mesopotamia and in this way Mohamed is very similar to Abraham that he preached his god as The God.

Also, what do you make out of custom of "stoning the devil"?
I've read that Arabs had a custom of pilgrimage to Mecca and going three times around Kaaba way back in time. I think it is related to the three goddesses more then to Abraham's "pelting".

Quote:


Actually, I mean the word itself is actually a contraction of the Arabic terms "Al" (the) and ilah (Deity) to make the word "Allah", not just that Muhammad (pbuh) 'preached' it.

Quote:


Although I believe Islam to be based on the exact same religion Abraham (pbuh) followed, my prophet is Muhammad (pbuh), he said to stone the devil, I stone the devil. I don't check back if it conforms with the time of Abraham (pbuh) before deciding whether to do it or not.

We believe pilgrimage to the Ka'abah though is related back to his time, the pagan Arabs simply instituted their own innovations into it over time as they degenerated into polytheism.

Quote:


Actually he asked: "What is the book about, and why did Muslims get so upset about it?"

Reading it himself would answer the both parts of his question I think.

Quote:


That topic didn't mention anything about Muslims being liars by admission (I assume this is what you mean by 'admittion'?), or perhaps you meant omission? Since your language skills seem to be a little lacking, it's kind of hard to determine exactly what it is you're trying to assert...

Quote:


According to most critics it was indeed a load of bollocks, and only received the acclaim it did because of its publicity.

The death sentence was from Iran, since neither Lestat nor myself are Shi'a, it's quite pointless to ask us to answer for their decree.

Lestat wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 7:54pm:





Lestat,

Are you suggesting that the examples of violent muslim behaviour which i present here, are not valid?

I have heard it said that in such examples, these ppl are not real muslims.
.....[muslim impersonators????]
.....[i am still trying to find real muslims, to study their behaviour. but I think they must have gone extinct.]




Lestat,

Which Koran and Hadith do you and abu follow?

Do you have a certain, peculiar, copy of the Koran and Hadith, which is unavailable to others?




And when i post Koran & Hadith quotes here, [from that version of the Koran and Hadith which i have access to], are you suggesting that the Koran & Hadith verses which i give are somehow incorrect???

Can you please direct me [with a link] to the correct Koran and Hadith???



Or is it just that [i have the correct Koran and Hadith, but that] i am somehow misrepresenting those Koran & Hadith verses, which i present on this forum???

Hmmmmm???




Hadith....

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.0...


"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.0...






Lestat, here is one of my favourite Koran verses....

Isn't it a beauty!!!

ALLAH'S DUPES.....

"Satan makes them promises, and creates in them false desires; but satan's promises are nothing but deception.
They (his dupes) will have their dwelling in Hell, and from it they will find no way of escape."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.120

locutius wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 12:37pm:




locutius,

University of Southern California hosts the ISLAMIC texts [including the Koran & Hadith], which i use as a source.

The site is a host for these texts, for the MSA [Muslim Students Assoc. of USA].



Your suggestion that ISLAMISTS suggest, we cannot understand the true meaning of the Koran, because it was / is written in Arabic, is a furphy.

If that argument was valid, no-one would be able to understand the message of the New Testament unless they learned Greek, and would be unable to understand the Old Testament scriptures, unless they learned Hebrew.

While some particular details may be in dispute, due to translation from the original language, the thrust of the words within those particular scriptures remain clear.





Of course, a similar translation of the Koran, and other ISLAMIC texts to other languages, are a special case.

Of course, ISLAMIC texts can never be clearly converted / translated, to other languages, because Arabic is indecipherable / incomprehensible, to anyone translating it to another language.
/sarc off

Poppycock!

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 7:39pm:


They are still there.
Quote:

an-Najm 53:19-22
The only highlighted verses were deleted.

I started to read the Rushdi's SV second time now and found it more entertaining then first time because of the research I've done and probably because I'm getting used to Arabic and Indian names.

I reckon that Ayatollah Khomeini took personal offence to it because the book's personage "Imam"  looks bad and he looks like Khomeini. I think that is the real reason for his fatwa. Well, you don't mess with a psychopath even old one.

Quote:

tallowood,

Quote:


at-Tabari's history is a history book, not an Islamic source text. It contains known true facts about history, and it contains fabrications and possibly all manner of half truths in between. This one has been proven to be a clear fabrication for a few good reasons.

1) The pagan Makkans offered Muhammad (pbuh) kingship, wealth and his choice of Makkan women, if he'd just compromise his message for them. He flatly refused by saying "Even if you put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left, I would not give up this message, until God makes it victorious or I die in it's cause". Why would he reject those things, yet he'd compromise just for people to bow with him? Doesn't sound very logical

2) The verses that supposedly abrogate this verse, and expunge it from the Qur'an weren't revealed until many years later (about 8 years in fact), so that would mean the "Satanic verses" would've stayed in effect for 8 years, if they actually existed. And that 8 years saw the most brutal persecution against the Muslims.

3) Not a single hadith mentions this incident. Hadith are the only reliable historical sources we have of that time period, because of their massive amounts of corroborating narration chains from so many vastly different regions of the early Islamic empire.

locutius,

As I said already, it's a decree of the government of Iran, take it up with the Shi'a, since they made the ruling, and presumably believe it to be binding on *them*. Nothing to do with the rest of us (95%) Muslims.

Do you support the murdering of bricklayers?? What kind of nonsensical questioning are you engaging in.

I just don't consider your question aimed at me as valid, in fact I consider it quite offensive, therefore I choose not to answer it.

You can make what you like of it, omission, deception, even an admission of guilt if you like, knock yourself out.

Quote:


Apparently the devil made him do it. So it is not supposed to be logical.

Quote:


Perhaps you should just answer it then Abu. Islam forbids blasphemy, and as far as I can tell you haven't said what the punishment for blasphemy is.

Quote:


I have added this as an example of hypersensitivity.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Hypersens...

freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 1:03pm:


Basically, parts of the story line where based on certain hadiths (traditions of the Prophet) that at one point, Muhammad (pbuh) was tempted by the Devil to add verses to the Qur'an allowing worship of multiple deities in order to appease the pagans of Makkah, but that these verses were later taken out after Gabriel corrected him. These hadith though were related by a narrator who was known to be a liar and fabricator of hadith, and so they are not accepted. Certain biographies of Islam do include them, only as that they include everything true and false, real or legend, which was relayed about the Prophet of Islam.

If you go to youtube, look up the user Ozzycda, he has some very informative videos on this and other topics.

The problem which Muslims have with Rushdie's work is that it perpetuates this false hadith/story that the Devil was able to tamper with the Qur'an.

The book was also banned in South Africa due to the pornographic and racist themes of some of its content. At one point a black character in the book who... eats... s-h-i-t, is made by Rushdie to say that white man's s-h-i-t (okay, yes I realize it's a bit juvenile to spell out curse words, but I really don't like to use them), tastes better than N-word s-h-i-t. Also certain figures in Great Britain, such as Marguerite Thatcher and the Queen of England are called names like whores and such.

Many Muslims who protested did not read the book, and just followed others' claims that it was blasphemous. Also, there are some things to be said about Imam Khomeini's motives in declaring such a fatwa over someone who is not even a citizen of his country, but Allahu a3lam (God knows) whatever those intentions were.

I have to admit, I too haven't read the entirety of the Satanic Verses. I tried to, but I just found it a very tiresome work to get involved in as a reader. I did read another work of his, Midnight's Children, which I did enjoy a lot. I actually have autographed copies of most of his works, including the Satanic Verses... I just don't have his newer works like the Moor's Last Sigh or that other book... I think it had the word Clown in the title, but the rest of the title is escaping my mind right now...

But, to conclude, Muslims felt insulted by many of the themes this book contained, and it and the cartoon protests are better understood as bursting points. Muslims are frustrated by many things in this world. They're frustrated by what seems to be an unending attack of their countries by more powerful nations, frustrated by what appears to them a robbery of the land and livelihoods of their brothers and sisters in Palestine/Israel, frustrated by what seems to be an attack on their culture, religion, and moral values. To many, all of the wars and invasions in Muslim lands today, seem to be a continuation of the attack against Islam and attempted suppression of Islamic values and cultures as was seen during the colonial era. Irreverent cartoons and books are just the needle that broke the camel's back, so to speak, and provide physical symbols to rally against. It's hard to rally and protest against something as immaterial as a country's foreign policy, but books and cartoons make good physical effigies to put before and stir up a crowd. All the frustration and anger let loose during the protests had been built up over decades of feeling wronged by the world at large.

That being said, I do not agree with such violent and aggressive protests, that end up at times killing some of those participating in them. When asked for advice once, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said three times (to emphasize) what is translated to English as "Do not get angry." If a Muslim gets angry, he/she should sit down. If he/she is still angry than he/she should lie down. If he/she is still angry, then he/she should perform wudu - the washing ritual made before prayers, to cool down. There is a lot of emphasis in Islam on patience and forbearance, just as there is in Christianity and Judaism. Once the prophet (pbuh) was sitting with one of his companions. People started to mock his companion, but that companion (it was either Abu Bakr or Omar... I almost always get them mixed up) stayed silent and patient with what the people were saying against him. Then the people said something against Muhammad (pbuh) who was with him. At that instant, the companion turned furious and got up to fight the people for what they were saying against the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). At that moment though, when the companion got angry and stood up to fight, the Prophet (pbuh) left. Abu Bakr/Omar (sorry, the confusion between them is my own), followed after instead of fighting and asked the Prophet (pbuh) why he left. The Prophet (pbuh) said "Oh Omar/Abu Bakr (I think it was probably Omar... Omar tended to have a bit of a hot-temper) as long as you were staying patient and keeping your silence there were angels praising you, but the instant you got mad, the angels left, and I do not stay in places where there are no angels." I think this is very good advice that all Muslims, and people in general should remember, not to let themselves fall into anger and irrational actions.

Thank you very much for reading, and anything I said of the truth comes from God, and anything I said that was incorrect comes from my own human fallibility.

Peace!

jordan484 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 6:34am:

No problem. Always happy to help clarify things where I can.

Another thing to remember is that when people feel they are being attacked, the fight or flight mechanism can kick in. To the cries of, If you don't like it here, go back to your own country, many people can't. Some, like me, were born in the West, and have our lives and families here (although, funnily enough, I am planning a move to Yemen in May, insha'Allah - God willing, so I should say to such people, just wait and give me a few months and I'll be out of your hair insha'Allah). Others really can't return to their own countries. I have Palistinian friends and Bosnian friends who simply can't go back to their own countries where they were born for fear of violence and persecution. So without the flight option, there's only the fight option left in that mechanism. And that's what many people do resort to.

Surah (chapter) 103 of the Qur'an entitled Al 'Asr (the time) says:

1. By the time. [here Allah is swearing by the immensity of time]
2. Verily! Man is in loss,
3. Except those who believe and do righteous good deeds, and recommend one another to the truth, and recommend one another to patience.

*bracketed items are added to explain features of the Arabic style which are not as translatable into English or not understood as well in the translation*


So, although there is this fight or flight response, mankind (al Insan in Arabic) should believe in the One God, and perform good deeds, and recommend one another to performing good deeds and to patience.

God is with those who are patient.

And again, anything I say of the truth comes from God, and anything I say that is wrong is on account of my own limitations.

Peace!

tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 9:01am:


Thank you for your response, but I'm kinda new here, and I'm trying to be polite and respectful, so I would appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy. Maybe I'm reading too much into your response, but it seemed very aggressive and accusative.

As for your question, while the term shaitan can be applied to any rebellious entity, be it human, jinn, or <i>The Shaitan</i> formerly named Iblis, the name of the specific narrator of this Hadith was al-Waqidi. For your questions about who determined what was true and what was not, specifically in the case of the reliability of al-Waqidi as a transmitter and his transmissions as believable or not, please see this website: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html They go into much more detail than I could manage in these 5500 character posts.

As for your last question, of course Muhammad (pbuh) was 100% human, just as Jesus Christ (pbuh) was 100% human, but as a theist, and specifically, as an Islamic theist, I believe that God protects His prophets (peace be upon all of them) from bringing false messages to their people. As for me, I am not a prophet, so I can't trust that what I say is free from error.

Again, this is just my view coming from a theist background. You're welcome to disagree, but please try to limit the passive-aggressiveness.

Whatever I say correctly comes from God, whatever mistakes I make are my own, and please forgive me for that.

Peace!

Hmm... I think I used the phrase "as for" way too many times...

tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:12am:


"What is the name of that narrator, not Shaitan by a chance?"

That was what seemed a little aggressive to me. But again, like I said, I might have just been reading more into it than was there.

You're right that the hadith would not violate the notion of God protecting His revelation from errors, since according to the hadith, He sent Gabriel to correct it.

However, what would violate the Prophet's (pbuh) mission is that he himself would ever accept other deities as okay intercessors after saying la ilaha (no gods) illa (except) Allah (The God). So, the hadith's relation that he accepted worship of other deities contradicts his Shahadah or testimony of faith that there is no other god worthy of worship except God.


tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:12am:


Yes, the people were making decisions about the veracity of the ahadith (plural of hadith) were not prophets and were prone to error. However, they used a scientific method of hadith authentication and reasoning. How Al-Waqidi was determined to be unreliable is discussed in the site link I gave in the previous post, along with arguments for why the story itself is unacceptable given considerations in details of its telling and supposed time of occurence.

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 11:14am:


Now there's a whole PhD of a subject right there.

Well, here is something you might find interesting to read...

http://www.quran.org/library/articles/ahmad0.htm

I'm sorry I can't give you a more concise explanation of the method of hadith authentication and its application in Islam.  I hope that this article gives you some idea of the complexity of this subject, though.

Here's what one person (http://looklex.com/contact/p_tore.htm) had to say about the method of the collection and authentication of the ahadith:

"When early Muslim scholars collected the siras, they used two methods. The first method weighed authenticity by testing the chain of the story's transmitters, isnad. Scholars would analyze how far back in time it was possible to trace the transmission, and whether the transmitters were reported to be honest people, etc. The other method compared stories, and the more a group of stories related to one another, the more reliable they were considered to be.

This scholarship resulted in 6 collections, or hadiths. Of these, the one assembled by the scholar Bukhari is considered to be the most scientifically accurate. Muslim's hadith is considered to be almost as good as Bukhari's. The other 4 also have high value, but most people reading the hadiths seldom venture beyond Bukhari and al-Muslim. The 4 are the following; Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud and an-Nisai.

According to the tradition, Bukhari had 7275 traditions validated out of a material of 600,000. Muslim collected 9,200 out of a total 300,000. Among of the high number of omitted traditions many were left out for being duplicates.

The value and accuracy of the hadiths should be regarded as fairly high, when judged by modern scholarship. The techniques used by these historians, resembles to a large extent that employed by cotemporary historians. Their achievement is so much the greater, however, because they had few historical models on which to rely. While several irregularities can be traced, little can be ascribed to lack of scientific honesty."

http://i-cias.com/e.o/hadith.htm

Go tallow...  on fire 

Quote:


I don't see anything scientific in it, but then I tend to use science in the modern context, as distinct from the methods used to study history.

Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:


Sorry I've mislead you the Full Moon made me do that , it was in another thread. So now here it is where it rightfully belongs.

Quote:
(c) SV by S. Rushdie (chapter 2, page 64)

Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:35pm:


"a narrator who was known to be a liar and fabricator" -> The Deceiver -> Shaitan



Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:35pm:


Of course Rushdie's SV is a fiction as books of literature are.

Rushdie's sources for the verse are Tabarī's Tafsīr, Muqātil, Abdu r-Razzāq, Ibn Kathir, Abu Ja‘far an-Nahhās, Wāhidī and Suyūtī.

His inspiration for character of Gibreel comes from Michail Bulgakov's great masterpiece "Master and Margarita".  "Woland (Satan in disguise) a 'foreign professor' who is in Moscow to present a performance of 'black magic' and then to expose its machinations. The exposure (as one could guess) never occurs, instead Woland exposes the greed and bourgeois behaviour of the spectators themselves". "He who is eternally Evil but is fated to do Good for ever."
In its own turn the character of "Woland" was inspired by "Mephistopheles" from medieval legends about Doctor Faust.

When I read SV first time few years ago I found it boring but since than the controversy of the book made me to do some research and now I really enjoying it. It is great example of intercultural transmission: from medieval Christian Europe to atheistic USSR of 1920s to modern Islamic culture of Indian subcontinent and back to modern Europe. Fantastic journey with a little help on the way from Evil Imam who was fated to do Good Work of popularising the Rushdie's book.

But a work of fiction "The Satanic Verses" and how it was recieved by Muslims is the topic. What non-fiction inspired some of the story and what was made up is just where the discussion has most recently arrived.

We may get somewhere with this. Like FD and Emily have both agreed, Scientific method can't really apply except possibly in analysing physical evidence such as origin and age but not the validity of the message.

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 3:56pm:



The name of the topic and the first post:
The Satanic Verses
"What is the book about, and why did Muslims get so upset about it?"

Is it about Rushdie's book or about Koran?

It is rather obvious that Koran here was mentioned only as attempt to explain why did Muslims get so upset about Rushdie's book.

Of course you do because you have no idea what to say on the topic proper. Would be better if you read The Satanic Verses first.

You may download The Satanic Verses from here for free and read the book for yourself.
http://www.filefactory.com/file/ac2b29/n/Salman_Rushdie_-_The_Satanic_Verses_rar

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:36pm:


You forgot to delete your "sigh..."

I know that I have great sense of humour no need to remind.

How do you know which ahadith are fictional and which are not after all most of them were written way after the event?

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:58pm:


good
good
good but it wasn't me who introduced the "scientific" method argument in the discussion of the great work of fiction. I only provided reference when asked to sources where Rushdie(pbuh) got his information about SV from all of them reputable Islamic historians and scholars.

Sam wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 5:50am:



Well, why go apeshit over such obvious forgeries? Why act like a raw nerve was touched if they are such obviou nonsense, those satanic verses? Why kill actual people and declare a murderous fatwah over so obvious a mistake?
Why not just be reasonable?

Perhaps under sharia. Rushdie and his translators did not live under sharia.