…and I was wondering: why was there a price on Rushdie’s head? Specifically, what in this book was so incredibly heretical that it prompted that much ire?
The parts people found controversial were in Farishta’s dream about the “Messenger” (i.e. Mohammed), and the way that he and his followers were portrayed.
Fairly straightforward…nutballs take exception to fiction, issue fatwah. I actually bought my copy of the book from Cody’s in Berkeley the day before it was firebombed for selling it.
Thanks. That was pretty straightforward. And totally crazy. Good ol’ Khomeini. Thanks for the clue I desperately needed (read: check Wikipedia you buffoon)
What Wikipedia says is different from what I remember. As I remember it, in the Satanic Verses, instead of the angel Gabriel delivering God’s word to Muhammad, it is really Satan. And I only read the book about ten years ago. Admittedly, it was almost too artsy to understand, but that’s the way I remember it.
So, “the religious figure you worship is really Satan,” was the message and I can see why people found it offensive and blasphemous. Christians probably don’t enjoy reading novels that protray Christ as Satan, either.
A study guide (in .pdf format) is available at http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/svnotes.pdf
It wasn’t Satan writing the verses, but a common man who was dreaming about the Mosiac time and he was affecting the lives of the people in his dreams by his dreamng. IIRC the scribe who was writing the verses was also being instricted what to write for political reasons.
What I saw that could cause Rushdie problems among the faithful was that the bible could be written and affected by common people.
I did love the story though.
Sgt Schwartz
To be fair, the vast riots of noisy protestors hadn’t actually read the book but had only been told it was blasphemous.
Just like the Muhammed cartoons!
Back when Rushdie was in total isolation, I picked up a book and read it because there was a blurb from him on the back, praising it. After I finished the book, I was sorely tempted to send Rushdie a letter that said, “You really should get out more.” :eek:
It was a classic case of overreacting, sort of like the fundies getting their panties in a wad over The Last Temptation of Christ without ever seeing it.
I get your point, but I thought that part of the uproar over the cartoons was that they said images of Muhammed should not be shown, period.
That is true, but an Egyptian newspaper printed the cartoons and there was no outburst. It was only after someone in the Middle East reprinted the cartoons with a few extra images intentionally designed to offend Muslims that weren’t part of the original set that the controversy started. I’m sure a few Muslims might have protested without actually viewing the cartoons themselves, though. (I’m not making a stereotype against Muslims here, I’m just saying that religious organizations like to jump on the bandwagon without actually knowing what’s really going on.)
When motion capture suits were first developed, a Saudi company wanted one for an animated film of Mohammad’s life they were making. The suit was going to be for Mohammad’s horse. I can’t imagine they’d show his horse, with him not riding it.
Well, unless they called it The Invisible Iman.
IIRC, there was a movie called Mohammad, Messenger of God which managed to indicate Mohammad’s presence on the scene without violating the taboo against depicting him through various circumlocutions, including showing (part of) the horse he was riding with the rider out of frame.
Yeah, that was my understanding of it too.
[hijack]If you enjoyed it, I strongly recommend you read The Moor’s Last Sigh and/or Midnight’s Children. They’re much more plot- rather than content-driven and thus, much more interesting. Well, to me, anyway. [/end hijack]
I tried to read it and I think the reason a “Fatwah” was put on Rushdies head was that it was so incredibly boring ,I dont think the Islamists were even thinking about blasphemy when they said they wanted to kill him.
LOL – I remember a radio account of some cheesy tell-all book about Princess Diana. The host mentioned some thirteenth-century law that could send Diana’s alleged lover to the gallows, then commented that some critics would like to send the author to the gallows for perpetrating this prose [reads a section that has mercifully left my memory].