The above text is a detailed exploration of "The Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie. It begins by discussing the origin of the satanic verses in the Qur'an and how they inspired Rushdie's work. The complexity of the novel is then described, with its interlaced narratives and exploration of various themes such as religion, racism, and government tyranny. The reaction to the novel in the Muslim community is also covered, including the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini and the subsequent violence and censorship. The text argues that the novel challenges readers to think and that the violent reaction to it is unjustified. It concludes by emphasizing the importance and relevance of the novel in today's world.

The story of "The Satanic Verses" is a complex and multi-faceted one that delves into the heart of human nature and the role of religion in society. Rushdie's use of allegory and metaphor creates a rich and engaging narrative that forces readers to confront their own beliefs and prejudices. The novel's exploration of the relationship between the East and the West is particularly timely in today's globalized world, where cultural differences often lead to conflict and misunderstanding.

Despite the controversy that surrounds it, "The Satanic Verses" remains an important work of literature that continues to spark debate and discussion. Its themes of freedom of expression, religious tolerance, and the power of art are as relevant today as they were when the novel was first published. As we continue to grapple with the challenges of a changing world, it is essential that we engage with works like "The Satanic Verses" and strive to understand the diverse perspectives and experiences that shape our lives.

I read the novel because an educated friend of mine told me that the author, Salman Rushdie, criticized some ayat in Iran in this novel.

Of course, I didn't believe her, but she insisted that Salman Rushdie was criticizing them and for that, they issued a fatwa against him.

I was shocked by the hideousness of this act. It is a very bad novel that slurs the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his pure wives, the mothers of the believers.

Salman Rushdie's work is an insult to the religious beliefs and feelings of Muslims. Such actions should not be tolerated. We should respect the beliefs and cultures of different religions and promote harmonious coexistence among different ethnic groups and religions through dialogue and communication.

Actually, I have clearly marked it as not to read. I had no intention whatsoever of reading it, yet somehow it is showing up as read.

Anyway, I felt the need to write a few lines about it. The book brought a fatwa on Rushdie's head from Khomeini. As a result, Rushdie had to go into hiding for many long years.

He deliberately set out to be provocative and extremely offensive on a highly sensitive subject. Given his own Muslim background, he must have been fully aware that this would create huge trouble and controversy, and indeed he succeeded in doing so.

I vividly remember that it was in 1989. Massive rioting broke out in Pakistan against the book. As many as 10,000 people participated, and unfortunately, six protesters were killed. Islamabad turned into a virtual battleground.

The irony is that while Rushdie managed to stay alive, others actually lost their lives because of his book. There were also riots and protests in several other Muslim countries. He became a highly hated figure among Muslims.

Rushdie was all over the newspapers, but unfortunately, not for the right reasons. He asked for trouble and got it. However, it still generated a great deal of publicity and made him famous worldwide.

Surprisingly, the Booker Prize judges still had some affection for it, although it lost to another book in the final round.

So, this particular book is definitely not something I would recommend reading. Nor am I interested in any of his other books, no matter how highly regarded a writer he is supposed to be.

I never managed to get beyond page 60 in this book. I would read, forget, reread, and forget again. This went on until about the fifth reading when I thought to myself that I might rate "Midnight's Children" as one of the greatest books I've read. I also greatly enjoyed the depiction of Benazir Bhutto as the Virgin Ironpants in "Shame". However, I couldn't read "Shalimar the Clown" and thought that "Grimus" was terrible (not even Rushdie himself rated this first offering of his oeuvre highly). So, what was I doing trying so hard with "The Satanic Verses"? I felt that for a book to generate such a chaos of praise, death, and destruction, I must read it for myself and see what it was all about. But I just couldn't. It bored me stiff.

However, from the synopsis and reviews I have read of the book, I think it might translate into an excellent film. I just don't think there is a director alive who is courageous enough to make it, nor a cast who would act in it, and I don't blame any of them. But I do hate that the fundamentalists have achieved even that much of a victory.

Death to all those that oppose *freedom! Well, not death, actually, not that. Just shut up already and go and complain to your friends and family like everyone else would.

Also see "Joseph Anton" for what I thought of Rushdie writing "The Satanic Verses".

This is the third Rushdie book that I have read.

He has a unique way of writing that often makes me feel I'm not intelligent enough to truly understand his works, thus making it difficult for me to rate them.

This particular book has been on and off my reading radar for at least 25 years. I vividly remember all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first published, including the fatwa that was issued against the author.

I discovered that I was more intrigued by the circumstances and the author himself than by the actual book, which is why I never got around to reading it.

Now that I have picked it up, I expected it to be somewhat outdated, but to my surprise, it isn't.

From what I recall, the fatwa was placed on the author because he proposed the idea that since Mohammed was illiterate and had the Qu'ran read to him by the Archangel Gabriel, he could have fallen asleep at some point, and Satan could have intervened and impersonated Gabriel, thereby writing some of the verses in the Holy Book (Satanic Verses).

So, I anticipated that the book would be centered around this concept. However, this is not the main story of the book; it is merely a dream sequence of a character who fell from the sky after an airplane explosion (yes, you read that correctly).

The main part of the story is actually about India and its race relations with England. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of this history (hence my earlier comment about not being smart enough).

What I found interesting, for lack of a better term, is that these same race issues are still prevalent today. This is rather disturbing considering that this book was first published in 1988.

While I didn't enjoy this one as much as Midnight's Children or The Ground Beneath Her Feet, I did like it and believe that it is (still) an important book to read.

One of the worst books ever written. It is outrageously stupid, filled with staggering and bizarre concepts, and a deteriorating narrative.

It purports to be written under the "freedom of speech" concept. However, it only criticizes, ridicules, and targets one religion. It is extremely ignorant and contradictory in nature. I firmly believe that this book was written with the intention of hurting sentiments. It is not recommended to anyone who believes in freedom of speech and respects other religions, regardless of how many differences of opinion one may have with them.

If I had the option, I would have given this book 0 stars, but unfortunately, that is not possible.

For more information and discussions, you can visit my Blog, YouTube channel, Instagram, Facebook page, or LinkedIn profile.

I had a remarkable experience with a group of buddy readers on Litsy. The variety of responses to the book was truly fascinating. Some of us decided to DNF (Did Not Finish), while others completed it and had different opinions. Some really liked it, while for me, it wasn't quite to my taste. However, I freely admit to having an admiration for a book that can evoke such diverse reactions among readers.

I was horrified to learn about the fatwa on Rushdie and the difficult times he endured, including hiding, the deaths of translators, the destruction of bookstores selling his work, and all the hate that stemmed from the response to this book. I have a lot to say about this, but I'll save it for another time and place, dear Goodreads friends.

Now, let me explain why I only read two-thirds of the book. Firstly, I ran out of renewals at the library, and I took that as a clear sign that finishing wasn't meant to be. Secondly, I developed a sense of apathy towards the characters. I simply didn't have a strong enough interest in where the story was headed, and it seemed pointless to me. I tried to be a good sport and continue reading for a while, but the tangents Rushdie took became too much for me.

The prose was another factor. Rushdie is incredibly eloquent and can craft masterful paragraphs. However, at times, he is so verbose that I think even he forgets the point he's trying to make and has to circle back. In this book, it's easy to get lost in the sentences and forget the plot, like getting lost in a forest of trees. I can only lose my way from the plot so many times before losing interest.

Finally, the grandiosity of the narrator also played a role. While it makes sense given who the narrator is, I started to wonder if the lines between the grandiosity of the narrator and the author were blurring. Others seemed to agree on this point. Rushdie is undoubtedly smart and talented, and he knows it. After certain long-winded paragraphs, I began to picture him gesturing to the reader, saying, "Eh, eh, did you see what I did there? I don't think you appreciated it enough. Here's some more sentences on the same point. I still don't think you fully grasped my thoughts."

Despite all this, I can't rule out attempting another Rushdie book in the future. I'd definitely want to do it with a group again, as that was very helpful in understanding the themes, prose, and overall reaction to his work.

David Lodge once observed that there are books one reads and books one would rather read about. During my lecture, I often wondered if it was the latter rule that applied to Rushdie's novel, considering all the scandal and death threats surrounding the religious issues it entailed.

By the way, I highly doubt the author didn't suspect his book would cause controversies. Even though I don't know much about the Muslim religion, I do know about fanaticism. And if one looks closely, there are some rather blasphemous allusions in the book. For instance, the name Mahound, which was a derogatory term the English used for the prophet Mohammad during the Crusades. Or the devilish (in the book) image of Saladin, whose name is similar to that of another great Muslim hero during the same Crusades. And then there's the arguable Ayesha character, among others.

It was quite interesting to learn (via Wikipedia, of course) what the Satanic Verses are. It is said that Mohammad thought some verses, in which he was permitted to pray to three Meccan goddesses, were sent to him by God as part of the Qur'an, when in fact they were from Satan. Even more fascinating was to discover that the phrase "Satanic Verses" was coined by Western academies, while the Muslims call them "Bird Verses".

I must admit that I've had mixed feelings about this book from the very beginning. Many years ago, irritated by the seemingly trite first sentence, "To be born again, first you have to die!", I initially decided not to read it. But eventually (and obviously!), I changed my mind. And here I am now, trying to make sense of this love-hate relationship that developed throughout my reading.

What really bothered me was that everything in this book is overly ornate, much like oriental carpets. And it can be so tiring to follow such an intricate pattern at times! Indian immigrants, the film industry, the noise of London, mystic revelations, religious pilgrimages, and so on, all jumbled together in a chaotic mess that makes your head spin. It builds a colorful world in a frenetic, incessant to and fro movement, similar to a tireless fair.

The alienation through immigration and loss of religion is an interesting subject, but it seems to lack some sort of equilibrium, specifically a compositional equilibrium. For example, I felt that the religious layer was overly emphasized, and overall, there were too many themes that remained undeveloped in the end. It leaves you with the sensation of something unfinished and overstuffed at the same time.

And yet. And yet. I don't think I've ever read anything more beautiful than the chapter "The Parting of the Arabian Sea". And to suggest in the next chapter that it was only a scenario for a movie - that was absolutely brilliant! Also, I don't think I've encountered a more evocative rendering of the sound of the city, deafening, shrill, and exhausting, contributing to the alienation of the characters. The death of Saladin's father is also an interesting example of the sublimation of complicated relationships, while Gibreel's death is somehow burlesque.

I closed the book, finished browsing my reading notes, and I'm still not sure how I should feel about it. And I'm looking at Midnight Children on my shelf, wondering whether I will read it or not. Maybe. Sometime.

Salman Rushdie is a controversial figure. He uses excessive language, which clouds the already discordant plots in his works.

His part-time occupation seems to be scouring the news to write op-eds about what he perceives as evil Muslim organizations, all while being obsessed with celebrity status.

In "The Satanic Verses," he strangles the plot by attaching every development to forced and overly long descriptions or metaphors. This overwriting not only halts the narrative flow but also makes the reading experience distracting.

He often returns to the same topic with more metaphors, as seen in the first chapter with the repeated description of things falling out of a plane.

His use of ingratiating language gives the impression that he lacks confidence in his writing.

The book is filled with what seems like intentionally jumbled words and run-on sentences, which is not only unappealing but also makes the reading feel like a chore.

Rushdie's magical realism, which relies on controversial fairy tales, fails to create anything more interesting than a competent author could with real and concrete elements.

His misappropriation of history, with a lazy disregard for truth and context, is more characteristic of a Dan Brown than a great author.

The fact that "The Satanic Verses" has risen to the level of world-renowned "Great Art" speaks more to the global prejudice against Islamic theology than to its literary worth.

Now that he's no longer in hiding, Rushdie lives a pampered celebrity life. He's an English knight, teaches at Emory University, and has had cameos in various shows.

His fourth wife, a model who poses nude and is much younger than him, adds to the spectacle. Her claims of wanting to earn her seat at the table next to Rushdie only add to the hubris on display.

Overall, Rushdie's work and personal life are both the subject of much debate and criticism.

Labai įdomus, išskirtinis kūrinys.

Neapleido pojūtis, kad skaitau ,,Meistro ir Margaritos\\" kitą dalį, ir ką, pasigilinus radau, jog Salman Rushdie romaną parašė įkvėptas būtent Bulgakovo!

Netgi yra straipsnis (Balasubramanian, R. (1995). The Similarities Between Mikahil Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita and Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses) kuriame abu šie kūriniai lyginami!

Taigi, kas žavėjosi Meistru ir Margarita turėtų mėgautis ir Šėtoniškomis eilėmis.

Abiejų žanras - magiškasis realizmas.

Tik eilėse labiau susitelkta į Indijos problemas.

Gvildenama amžinoji gėrio ir blogio kovos tema, supriešinti Rytai ir Vakarai, ironizuota religijų tarpusavio nesantaika.

These two works, "The Master and Margarita" by Bulgakov and "The Satanic Verses" by Rushdie, are truly remarkable and share many interesting similarities. The discovery that Rushdie was inspired by Bulgakov to write his novel is quite astonishing. The comparison between the two works in the mentioned article further highlights their commonalities. Both belong to the genre of magical realism, but "The Satanic Verses" delves more into the problems of India. The eternal theme of the struggle between good and evil is explored, as well as the contrast between the East and the West, and the irony of religious intolerance. Overall, these works offer a unique and thought-provoking reading experience.

Satanic Verses: A Composition

He had just completed his thirty-fourth reading of the play. The unspoken hate, the unseen events, the half-imagined wrongs; they all tormented him. He simply could not fathom what could cause such evil to manifest. He loved him too deeply to believe the simple explanation.

Then, an idea began to take root in his mind - to explore the growth of evil just as Shakespeare had shown, to explore its tragic culmination. And because he was showing the growth, it could no longer be a tragedy. No, no, it had to be a comedy. A tragicomedy. Yes. And he set to work. He painted Othello as an Indian actor, worshiped and adored, and off on a mad canter to win his Ice Queen, his Desdemona. On his way, he meets him - the poor man trying to forget his own roots and desperately reinventing himself, his Iago.

Yes, Iago too was once a man. What twists of fate made him evil incarnate? He sets out his prime motif: The question asked here remains as large as ever it was: namely, the nature of evil, how it is born, why it grows, and how it takes unilateral possession of a many-sided human soul.

Wait a minute, he blinks at his notes. If Iago is evil incarnate, does that not also mean that he is Satan incarnate? Then Chamcha is Satan incarnate? And if that's the case, Othello has to be God? Maybe a little more corruptible? Let's make him the angel Gibreel, he decided. As an aside, as the angel, he can slip into that reality in his dreams and reenact the story (history?) of Prophet Mohammad in an inflammatory fashion, perhaps talk about the 'Satanic Verses' since his Satan can't help but gloat over his little jokes. Why not call the novel the same, except that it would mean something else - the verses that the real Satan of the story, Iago, sings in Othello's ear. He knows that this might cause misunderstandings, might ruffle a few feathers, but it's just a digression. The real story is beyond that - it's not the Event Horizon. But he can't help himself. He never could keep a story simple.

Ah, now something beyond mere Othello is taking shape, isn't it? If Iago is Satan, then surely it is in character for him to enjoy with consummate pleasure the sight of his own jealousy consuming himself - the green-eyed monster that feeds on itself. So Satan decides to narrate the story of one of his incarnations? Or rather, possessions? The questions that are to drive his plot are flowing freely now. How an ordinary man, when in contact with an angel, inevitably has to transform into Lucifer himself. How can one exist without the other. They meet, and the spiral ensues. Iago mutates and agitates, and like a cancerous growth, his strange fate builds until he turns his wrath square on his angel, his Othello. And how can he then not try to destroy what he is not, what he cannot be. There is the moment before evil, then the moment of, then the time after; and each subsequent step becomes progressively easier. But what about before and after the madness? It surely must be an ordinary life, with ordinary joys and pains. It is a cosmic drama, he concludes.

In the process, every insinuated implication in the play is to be played out in this story - Cassio does sleep with Iago's wife, Iago is madly lustful of Desdemona, Othello is a deserving victim of directed revenge for very real ills, and Iago needs no invented or unbelievable reasons for his actions. He is justified. It was inevitable.

Salman Rushdie sets down his pen.

He has vindicated Iago, many a literature lover's favorite character.

And for that, I am eternally thankful.

One of the novels that represents the intellectual criticism in all its meanings, as if the man refuses to carry all this filth inside him, so his criticism is on us in the form of a novel.

He did not only violate Islam in it, but also all the heavenly religions, but Islam and its Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, had the greater share.

Islam has always been and will remain a thorn in the throat of those like him.

Those who were extravagantly promoting Western culture and support, and for the decline and shallowness of monotheistic thought. This thought did not only blind its adherents from faith and religions, for God is independent of them and their faith, but it infected their minds and affected them with a state that became unable even to think simply or rationally. I have read a lot in this thought and only got out of it with continuous bouts of laughter at the stupidity of their thought and its emptiness, which is not from faith but from the intellect.

It is followed by a state of sadness for the noble creature adorned with intellect by its Creator, how he wasted his intellect to this extent and turned what he earned with his hands into this filth!

Finally, this work did not carry between its pages what is worthy of reading, no thought, no creativity, no story, no language, no literary style. It only carried intellectual poisons and psychological and intellectual diseases.