Satanic Verses...
I went searching for a blog by one of my heros - Geoffrey Robertson. At the very least I found a number of articles, including an analysis of Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' trying to find examples or even an example of Islamic blasphemy - which is supposedly what the fatwa was about.
BTW: How can blasphemy be blasphemy if you are not of the faith?
About 12 or so years ago I stopped reading or thinking about lots of things for a while. One of the last books I read was this one. At the time I can remember wondering what the fuss was about - for & against the book.
For the record, here are GR's words in italics on the matter.
• God is described in the book as “the Destroyer of Man.”
As He is similarly described in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, especially men who are unbelievers or enemies of the Jews.
• The book contains criticisms of the Prophet Abraham for his conduct towards Hagar and Ishmael and their son. Abraham deserves criticism and is not seen as without fault in Islamic, Christian, or Jewish traditions.
• Rushdie refers to Mohammed as “Mahoud.” He called him variously “a conjuror,” “a magician,” and “a false prophet.”
Rushdie does nothing of the sort. These descriptions come from the mouth of the drunken apostate, a character with whom neither author nor reader has sympathy. “Mahoud” is in fact a name that has been used by Christians for the Prophet.
• The book grossly insults the wives of the Prophet by having whores use their names.
This is the point. The wives are expressly said to be chaste, and the adoption of their names by whores in a brothel symbolises the perversion and decadence into which the city had fallen before it surrendered to Islam.
• The book vilifies the close companions of the Prophet, calling them “bums from Persia” and “clowns” whereas the Koran treats them as men of righteousness.
These phrases are used by a depraved hack poet, hired to pen propaganda against the Prophet. Christ’s disciples were derided by his enemies as ignorant fishermen, so it can hardly be blasphemous for an author to imagine the Prophet’s followers being subjected to the same kind of criticism.
• The book criticizes the teachings of Islam for containing too many rules and seeking to control every aspect of everyday life.
Characters in the book do make such criticisms, but they cannot amount to blasphemy because they do not vilify God or the Prophet.
BTW: How can blasphemy be blasphemy if you are not of the faith?
About 12 or so years ago I stopped reading or thinking about lots of things for a while. One of the last books I read was this one. At the time I can remember wondering what the fuss was about - for & against the book.
For the record, here are GR's words in italics on the matter.
• God is described in the book as “the Destroyer of Man.”
As He is similarly described in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, especially men who are unbelievers or enemies of the Jews.
• The book contains criticisms of the Prophet Abraham for his conduct towards Hagar and Ishmael and their son. Abraham deserves criticism and is not seen as without fault in Islamic, Christian, or Jewish traditions.
• Rushdie refers to Mohammed as “Mahoud.” He called him variously “a conjuror,” “a magician,” and “a false prophet.”
Rushdie does nothing of the sort. These descriptions come from the mouth of the drunken apostate, a character with whom neither author nor reader has sympathy. “Mahoud” is in fact a name that has been used by Christians for the Prophet.
• The book grossly insults the wives of the Prophet by having whores use their names.
This is the point. The wives are expressly said to be chaste, and the adoption of their names by whores in a brothel symbolises the perversion and decadence into which the city had fallen before it surrendered to Islam.
• The book vilifies the close companions of the Prophet, calling them “bums from Persia” and “clowns” whereas the Koran treats them as men of righteousness.
These phrases are used by a depraved hack poet, hired to pen propaganda against the Prophet. Christ’s disciples were derided by his enemies as ignorant fishermen, so it can hardly be blasphemous for an author to imagine the Prophet’s followers being subjected to the same kind of criticism.
• The book criticizes the teachings of Islam for containing too many rules and seeking to control every aspect of everyday life.
Characters in the book do make such criticisms, but they cannot amount to blasphemy because they do not vilify God or the Prophet.