The Satanic Verses

I was anticipating that it would be severe and arid. However, to my astonishment, it is quite the contrary.

Contrary to the widespread perception, it is not truly an assault on Islam (although certain portions of it might prove offensive to extremely devout Muslims).

Rather, it is more of a novel that delves into human nature, exploring themes such as love, hate, forgiveness, evil, good, and identity, among others.

I discovered that it is a highly enjoyable book, filled with remarkable events that left me in a state of profound thought upon completing my reading.

The story takes the reader on a journey through the complex and often contradictory aspects of the human psyche, presenting a nuanced and thought-provoking exploration of what it means to be human.

It challenges our preconceived notions and forces us to confront the darker sides of ourselves, while also offering hope and the possibility of redemption.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a engaging and intellectually stimulating read.

A near perfect novel.

I truly loved the writing. It was so captivating and engaging that it held my attention from start to finish.

I also adored the characters. They were vividly drawn and full of depth, each with their own unique personalities and stories.

What really impressed me was how Rushdie was able to master the concepts of heaven and hell, saint and sinner, heaven and earth in this dreamlike exploration of what it means to be an immigrant, an angel, a saint, and a sinner. His ability to blend these different elements together seamlessly was truly remarkable.

At times, he writes like a post-modern satirist cum Pynchon, using humor and irony to make his points. Then, suddenly, he melts into his best post-colonial Achebe, delving deep into the themes of race, identity, and colonialism. And then, off again he goes on his magical realist, literary carpet à la Gabriel García Márquez, creating a world that is both fantastical and believable.

Rushdie's writing is like a mountain that you don't climb down, but rather fly off. It takes you on a journey that is both thrilling and thought-provoking, leaving you with a sense of wonder and admiration.

I have been making a consistent effort to read this book day in and day out, yet I just cannot seem to get fully immersed in it. When it was first published, I gave it a try, but then I set it aside, thinking I would come back to it another day. Many years later, I made another attempt. This time, I hope it will be my penultimate effort.

The writing of this book is truly well done. It is eloquent and highly impressive. However, aside from the quality of the writing, there is nothing else that is gripping me to the extent that I feel compelled to put aside everything else and just curl up with this book. The subject matter simply does not have enough of a hold on me to mesmerize me completely.

Despite my current lack of engagement, I am determined to give it another try later. Maybe with a fresh perspective and a different state of mind, I will finally be able to discover the hidden gems within this book and truly appreciate it for what it has to offer.

Pretty sure this is part of the rarefied pantheon of books joining the likes of Infinite Jest and A Brief History of Time as one of the most bought, least finished books of all time.

It starts out strong with an almost singsong, Indian lilt and cadence as Gibreel and Saladin hurtle to earth - interestingly nonplussed by the whole affair. The initial part is captivating, drawing the reader in with its unique style.

But then its dream sequences and odd digressions left me scratching my head - I just couldn't get my footing. The story seemed to veer off in unexpected directions, making it difficult to follow.

Rushdie clearly is an accomplished writer. Open the book to any page and the writing often dazzles. He's working here, juggling ideas and poking at concepts. His prose is rich and full of imagery.

Maybe it's my own expectations coming into the book - wondering what could be so damning as to warrant a fatwa against his life. But it never really gelled and for all the furor it engendered all it managed to elicit from me was mild indifference. I just couldn't connect with the story or the characters on a deeper level.

If it wasn't part of a book club read I doubt if I would have finished it. It was a struggle to get through, and in the end, I was left with a sense of dissatisfaction.

For eight days, we engaged in a fierce wrestling match. "The Satanic Verses" and I were locked in a heaving struggle.

At times, it almost managed to escape as I chased it uphill, my straining hand tightly holding onto its heel as it wriggled. Then, I myself would seek respite from the battle, only to be pulled back in when I clutched for the out-of-bounds. But finally, we finished the struggle, and both of us were better for it.

"The Satanic Verses" is, I suspect, one of the most unread best-sellers. It is indeed a cantankerous beast, with sections that one must slog through. However, overall, I think its reputation for being impenetrable is somewhat undeserved.

The novel delves into the themes of migration, intermingling, hybridization of people, and religion. It opens with two Indian actors with British ties and sensibilities falling from a plane blown up by terrorists over England. One, Gabreel Farishta, seemingly arrives on Earth as the archangel Gabreel (or its avatar), wearing a golden halo. The other, Saladin Chamcha, transforms into a horned, hoofed devil. The two attempt to come to terms with their (temporarily) changed forms and cope with the struggles of life, their pasts, and their relationships, both romantic and familial. Gabreel experiences dreams in which he appears to be the angel he seems to be. This includes Rushdie's recreation/alteration of the prophet Muhammad's (here Mahound) supposed divine revelations, the Satanic verses of the title, and whether Mahound himself has altered these verses.

Gabreel also has modern visions; he supposedly inspires a village to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, believing that the Arabian Sea will part for them as they cross it.

When Rushdie first delves into the story of Mahound, the novel temporarily hits a brick wall that I was tempted not to climb over. It is slow and disorienting at first. However, our second visit to this vision, later in the book, is much more engaging. And the stories of Ayesha and her village's modern pilgrimage are alternately ponderous and incredibly beautiful (butterflies follow them, lighting on Ayesha like a blanket).

I expected to be baffled at times about exactly what was happening. In reality, I wasn't; my comprehension problems mainly dealt with what Rushdie was trying to achieve. Although I see the interconnectedness of the past and present visions and the story of Gabreel and Saladin (who slowly plots revenge on Gabreel after they are separated following their miraculous fall to Earth), I was occasionally confused about how Rushdie wanted us to relate them to each other. What, overall, is Rushdie trying to convey?

I truly believe that Rushdie (and this novel in particular) would benefit greatly from end notes. Just as with old classics, we might not understand archaic words or objects in modern times. Similarly, the non-Indian (or Britain-ized Indian) probably doesn't have a good understanding of Indian words or, particularly for me, Islam. Annotated edition, anyone?

It's difficult to separate "The Satanic Verses" from the fatwa declared on its author, which put him in fear for his life for many years. This undoubtedly contributed to its readership (or those who bought it out of curiosity and soon gave up on reading it altogether). I don't claim to know much about Islam or Muhammad, but calling for someone's death because of a few small scenes in a novel seems, er, a bit extreme.

"The Satanic Verses" is a sprawling and voluminous work. I don't think it's great as a whole. A paring down and a sharper focus would have been beneficial. However, Rushdie is an excellent writer; that's what carried the day for me. If I missed some of the nuances of how everything tied together, I still delighted in Rushdie's use of language, and there are several moving scenes. A section late in the book at the deathbed of a character is truly lovely.

Would I recommend the book to others? Maybe. But not if: this is your first Rushdie (try "Midnight's Children" instead); you prefer a linear, easily comprehensible plot; you get frustrated when the plot doesn't go where you want it to; you have to understand everything; you are impatient. Otherwise, if you're adventurous, give it a try.

The author of this article decided to write a novel based on the idea of the stream of consciousness, and its main protagonist was Hitler. In it, the author presented Hitler as a just ruler and a great personality who did everything for his country and sacrificed himself in its service. The author denied Hitler's actions of expelling the Jews and the Holocaust, and also denied his attempt to dominate the Aryan race. The author made the Nazi idea a noble idea that deserves to rule the world.

Would the author have received protection from human rights organizations? Would he have enjoyed the right to political asylum and protection from those who would persecute him?

And would Western civilization values and freedom of expression accept this?

This proposed question is a response to everything that a person who claims liberalism and freedom of expression might defend.

Of course, there is a huge difference between a bloody Nazi dictator like Hitler and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the Prophet of guidance and mercy who brought mercy to the world.

It is important to note that any attempt to glorify or justify Hitler and his Nazi ideology is completely unacceptable and goes against the principles of humanity, justice, and morality. Hitler's actions led to the deaths of millions of people and brought great灾难 and destruction to the world. We should always remember the lessons of history and坚决 oppose any form of extremism and dictatorship.

This story is a double disgrace. It is a disgrace to Western civilization that produced and embraced this farce. It is also a disgrace for our scholars who were content with slander and abuse and none of them cared to explain the elements of decline in the story in a theoretical, formal, and conceptual way.

I only found a response from the great Ahmed Deedat who touched on the structure of the story and said that it was plagiarized from another literary work.

But I did not find any scholar touch on the ideological aspect and the story of the cranes that Rashidi influenced in the story.

And which he tried to prove its authenticity to use it to refute the prophecy of our master Muhammad peace be upon him.

All of them were content with slander and abuse and we did not present a logical response to the West.

What kind of idea are you? This question reverberates throughout the pages of this novel, serving as a crucial link between the author and his work. It's like a Waterloo moment, a windbreaker that gives rise to questions about the material's purpose. It offers us a glimpse into why the author chose to name it "Satanic Verses," revealing all its diabolical implications and the motives behind its disrespect for Islam and the Prophet. So, what kind of idea is this? In turn, what kind of idea are we? People are often said to be the sum of their ideas and beliefs. But what exactly makes up our sum? What are we made of?

Are you a preconceived idea? When does the bias of the material end and when does the bias of the reader begin? If you're a Christian or a Muslim, the title of this novel might have made you pause, even if only for a moment. Or perhaps it drove you away completely. I assure you, this novel is not satanic in any devilish sense. Now, I pose the question: Do we truly approach a book with an open mind, or do we immediately judge books based on their titles? Do we read without bias or do we hinder fairness? Do we aim to learn or do we aim to protect our existing knowledge? These questions are crucial when discussing controversial reading materials. It dawned on me during an article review in one of my classes. My groupmates and I were discussing the bias of an article about the Gaza affair. My groupmates interpreted the article in favor of Israel, while I, on the other hand, saw it as a bit sympathetic towards the Palestinians. I realized then that when it comes to issues we have prior knowledge of, people tend to see what they want to see. Justifying one's stance takes priority over absorbing new information. This selective perception, which blinds us to any parity in the material, is a greater source of misunderstanding than the biased material itself. Of course, there will always be certain biases in all the materials we read, but the bias of the mind is like a sieve through which comprehension passes. It only lets in biases that it supports, greatly affecting one's understanding and shaping it into the mold one wants to see. The bias of a material will be evident to an open mind, but the bias of a reader can affect even the most unbiased material. A good example is the reading of the Bible. The Bible is the foundation of Christianity, and everything that Christians believe in comes from that book. But as Isaac Asimov once said, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." This just goes to show that one's biases are the hands that mold one's reading experience. People's understanding is based on certain assumptions and axioms derived from previous knowledge, but this principle can also be taken to an extreme. This "learned" mindset, which has become second nature to us, is a significant hindrance to critical thinking and knowledge acquisition. Even the most gifted minds are plagued by this problem, and I believe it takes years of practice to be able to read something without any inclinations.

So, before you read this novel, I beg you to make a conscious effort to be open-minded and at least try to suppress the inevitable biases that you will have. A full cup will spill all that is poured into it; be an empty cup. Only then can one truly learn to appreciate this novel.

Salman Rushdie's novel is a multi-layered magical tale with numerous possible implications. Its many facets, like a dice that can roll to many different sides, may have different meanings or might converge on one main point. It's difficult to precisely pinpoint the central theme of the novel. The author suggests that it's about migration and the problems that immigrants face, which is most evident during Chamcha's early metamorphism. The concept of "nationalism" and the betrayal of one's country are thereby explored. But then, Mahound's, the Butterfly Girl's, and the Immam's respective storylines attempt to bring perspective to blind faith. Baal's tale warns against trying to be someone else. The Old Woman's and Rehka Merchant's respective accounts tell us not to devote our purpose to another person. The terrorist's example hints at the mockery in self-sacrifice. Farishta's bizarre experiences advise us not to be fooled by destiny or purpose. Alleluia's case conveys that uprightness is not always rewarded. The whole "immigrant mob" incident showcases that the mob mentality is not always right. There are many possible ideas present, and one can choose which to focus on, which to ignore, and which to accept. Which idea are you?

For me, the main idea of this novel is learning to understand that one must create one's own ideas. If you notice, all the facets and interwoven tales are delved into problems when the characters place their lives, their ideas about nationalism, faith, someone they want to be like, someone they love, on political beliefs, on destiny, on goodwill, on what everybody does. We are so busy with these worldviews that we then overlook the question, "What are my own ideas?" "Who am I apart from these things that are not of my own making?"

"WHAT KIND OF AN IDEA ARE YOU?" "Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive; or are you the cussed, bloody-minded, ramrod-backed type of damnfool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze? – The kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, be smashed to bits; but, the hundredth time, will change the world." It might be a bit of a cliché, but one can't avoid the reality of what this says. Are your ideas truly your own, or were they implanted there by society? Creativity, originality, uniqueness – these things are being suppressed by a society that demands conformity and a sense of belongingness. What kind of idea will you be?

"Society was orchestrated by what she called ‘grand narratives’: history, economics, ethics. In India, the development of a corrupt and closed state apparatus had ‘excluded the masses of the people from the ethical project’. As a result, they sought ethical satisfactions in the oldest of the grand narratives, that is, religious faith. But these narratives are being manipulated by the theocracy and various political elements in an entirely retrogressive way." "We can’t deny the ubiquity of faith. If we write in such a way as to pre-judge such belief as in some way deluded or false, then are we not guilty of elitism, of imposing our world-view on the masses?" Worldviews, social constructs, axioms – these are just as important as one's individuality. For one must consider that one's self-interest does not give one the right to trample on another. "Let our aim be a way of life not diametrically opposed to, but better than that of the mob. Otherwise we shall repel and alienate the very people whose reform we should desire." I understand that Salman Rushdie was disrespectful to Islam and to Muhammad, but should he have been? That's not for me to say. It was his choice, and I refuse to cast another stone when I am merely an observer. But who are we to say that he deserves to die for his unbelief? It's one thing to ask for an apology, and quite another to take a life altogether. Why should a review be deleted when it says bad things about an author? Free expression is commendable, but one must also remember the repercussions. Acts are carried out in the name of ideas. Be careful what ideas you clash with and what ideas you embody, for unlike an idea which can change, the associated action cannot be undone. The Fatwa placed on Rushdie's head speaks to the truth about how conforming the world demands us to be, and how the actuality of ideas cannot be reversed. But sometimes, just sometimes, the realization that stems from one person's ideas can change the world for the better. Will the possibility of criticism deter your idea?

What kind of idea are you? Be your own kind of idea, think critically, question everything, don't be a passive receiver, be open-minded, be creative, unique, but also learn to respect ideas that are not your own.