‘The Satanic Verses’ by Salman Rushdie is about the larger influence of what other people think who you are, and how your thoughts about yourself can mutate because of what other people think of you. People will treat you, and act towards you, based on what they think you are. Two different things -You vs. the image of you. Or the third thing - you having internalized their vision of you into yourself.

Identity can be a demon living inside of you. And if you try to escape the self other people created for you, you can’t, not really. Neurons seared by struggles with identity feed unwelcome self-doubt.

One’s Culture affects thinking. But Culture changes and mutates as Time passes. Since religion is culture, it mutates your image of who you are as well. People are their culture. But culture is always mutating. What was beautiful or holy or admired, or what social rules were a hundred years ago, might not be beautiful or holy or admired or what the rules are today. Also, what is beautiful or holy or admired, or what the rules are, in one culture is not beautiful or holy or admired or what the rules are in a nearby culture of another territory or country, either, something a traveler can experience in the same day. An airplane trip can change your entire image of what people used to think of you, the whole of how you are perceived by others, in an hour or two. East meets West on common ground? Not bloody likely. You are who you think you are in the West as you were thought of in the East? Not bloody likely either. Fricking mutable identity - POW. Identity is apparently a flimsy masquerade, easily knocked awry. Each of us is the last one to know who we are when, during, after, who we think we are is put to a test.

People can mutate the harmless you you desire to be into an evil monster or a saint. Celebrities know very well the mob can love you one day and hate you the next. People are thinking they know you from only the images of you but they are actually mutating your airbrushed third-hand image.

Who are you now, exactly? The image in the mirror you see? Well, mirrors reverse your image, so its a scientific fact you never really see yourself. The image you see mirrored in the eyes of other people, coming off of you in the form of photons is twisted upside down by the lens in the eyes, and lands upside down on our retinas. People actually see images upside down, which is flipped again in the brain. Then there is the question of is what I see the same as what you see? I have a headache now.

If you become insane in the effort to be authentic, whatever that is, well, yeah. How could you not?

Below I have copied the book blurb:

”One of the most controversial and acclaimed novels ever written, The Satanic Verses is Salman Rushdie’s best-known and most galvanizing book. Set in a modern world filled with both mayhem and miracles, the story begins with a bang: the terrorist bombing of a London-bound jet in midflight. Two Indian actors of opposing sensibilities fall to earth, transformed into living symbols of what is angelic and evil. This is just the initial act in a magnificent odyssey that seamlessly merges the actual with the imagined. A book whose importance is eclipsed only by its quality, The Satanic Verses is a key work of our times.

~randomhousebooks.com

If you notice how the description of the book by the publisher is a bit obscure, nebulous, I think so too. But it fits the plot. This is an intellectual’s domestic fiction novel, with satirical under - and some sly overt - tones. It is a commentary about the invention of the self, but it is a self that is also curated through culture and the eyes of other people raised within a culture. It is about the perceptions of the human mind, the filtering we do with the brain, to make it all palatable to ourselves, which is in fact the dual function of the brain in interpreting reality. Reality? Wtf is that? The interplay of cells and neurons - our physical wiring - and the visions that serve us, guide us, the visions that often cannot be understood by us whether they are coming out of our dream life and what we call waking life, are they reality?

The novel is full of magical realism, and deep thoughts about culture and immigration, and our place in a culture, and the imagined self.

However, I suppose gentle reader, you actually want a plot description. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sat...

”The Satanic Verses consists of a frame narrative, using elements of magical realism interlaced with a series of sub-plots that are narrated as dream visions experienced by one of the protagonists. The frame narrative, like many other stories by Rushdie, involves Indian expatriates in contemporary England. The two protagonists, Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha, are both actors of Indian Muslim background. Farishta is a Bollywood superstar who specialises in playing Hindu deities (the character is partly based on Indian film stars Amitabh Bachchan and N. T. Rama Rao). Chamcha is an emigrant who has broken with his Indian identity and works as a voiceover artist in England.

At the beginning of the novel, both are trapped in a hijacked plane flying from India to Britain. The plane explodes over the English Channel, but the two are magically saved. In a miraculous transformation, Farishta takes on the personality of the archangel Gabriel and Chamcha that of a devil. Chamcha is arrested and passes through an ordeal of police abuse as a suspected illegal immigrant. Farishta's transformation can partly be read on a realistic level as the symptom of the protagonist's development of schizophrenia.[editorializing]

Both characters struggle to piece their lives back together. Farishta seeks and finds his lost love, the English mountaineer Allie Cone, but their relationship is overshadowed by his mental illness. Chamcha, having miraculously regained his human shape, wants to take revenge on Farishta for having forsaken him after their common fall from the hijacked plane. He does so by fostering Farishta's pathological jealousy and thus destroying his relationship with Allie. In another moment of crisis, Farishta realises what Chamcha has done, but forgives him and even saves his life.”.

Plus there is more and more and more…all told in wonderful writing - densely playful, full of cultural references and sideways jokes. This is a novel which needs to be read again and again.

Rushdie was raised in the Islam religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_...) which intersects in a number of its basic beliefs with Christianity. Angels and devils are the same characters in both religions. But the image of angels and devils, which might look the same to both a Christian and Muslim, are defined as representing quite different Good and Evils culturally, imho. Image/belief interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, the major theme of The Satanic Verses’ imho, in all of its permutations.

(I am going to use food as an example: food available in India, used for a religion-based meal, cannot be found in England sometimes. So meal preparers use alternative foods, sometimes they start using the foods English Christians use for their meals, making them their own. But does that make an evolving Muslim-Hindu believer Evil to other Muslims/Hindus still living in their homelands? If an Englishman sees an Indian Muslim or Hindu and sees Evil because of religion, skin color and accent, does that make the Muslim/Hindu believer actually Evil - or does it result sometimes in that he only sees himself evil in his own eyes on some subconscious level? Who has the right to define whom? Another case and type of co-opting - many Japanese are Buddhists, but many Japanese Buddhists have wholeheartedly co-opted some Christmas rituals. I read a magazine by an author who talked to Japanese who were shopping for Christmas trees, decorations and gifts. These Japanese Buddhists were mystified by the Christian stories behind our evolved Christian holidays and the forms of Christmas they too were happily embracing, further evolving, co-opting, in a completely harmless manner. Is this natural or against nature? It is natural. Is it Evil? No, imho. )

The story vehicle Rushdie uses in ‘The Satanic Verses as a foundation is the divisions created by immigration and Indian/Islam culture. What can one do to foster acceptance or reduce rejection by people? Can people grok/accept the differing personal mental visions developed/expressed by culture, if filtered by immigrants and White English people who live in or aspire to life in England in this case? Some immigrants completely reject their previous heritage, but they are in turn sometimes rejected by the people of their chosen cultural replacement, the new culture they now love and admire. Other immigrants remain in the bubble of their original culture trying to maintain their homeland inside of another, very different, homeland. The result, at least in ‘The Satanic Verses’ is a cultural chaos. There is immigrant evolution and devolution, described in Rushdie’s vision with deep intellectual amusement, amazement and confusion.

The book is a delirious and hysterical confection of wild hilarity encapsulated in a tale of amazed rage-based misery. The two main characters remind me of the character Candide by Voltaire. Rushdie also kicks around Western consumerism in a major way. I was reminded of Animal Farm ironically - about evil pigs) and 1984 by George Orwell, and Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and To Kill a Mockingbird by Lee Harper, and The Complete Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi, and The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison and All American Boys by Jason Reynolds and Saga, Volume 1 by Brian Vaughan, and The Priory of the Orange Tree by Samantha Shannon… and even The Book of Enoch. (The Book of Enoch includes the biblical tale of those angels, naming them, who were cast out of heaven because of their desire for human women.) And many more…which apparently have been printed and distributed and read in vain.

People are silly, no matter what the culture, religion, or belief system. I see the silliness of people much the same as Rushdie describes in ‘The Satanic Verses’. But it’s a very deadly silliness to some.

It is the most ironic silliness of all that the author Rushdie had a death sentence passed on him by Iran’s Supreme Leader of Iran Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 because of this book. For real. He called for Rushdie's death which has resulted in several unsuccessful assassination attempts. So far.

From the article in Wikipedia, a plot analysis with which I agree with completely:

”Muhammad Mashuq ibn Ally wrote that "The Satanic Verses is about identity, alienation, rootlessness, brutality, compromise, and conformity. These concepts confront all migrants, disillusioned with both cultures: the one they are in and the one they join. Yet knowing they cannot live a life of anonymity, they mediate between them both. The Satanic Verses is a reflection of the author’s dilemmas." The work is an "albeit surreal, record of its own author's continuing identity crisis."Ally said that the book reveals the author ultimately as "the victim of nineteenth-century British colonialism." Rushdie himself spoke confirming this interpretation of his book, saying that it was not about Islam, "but about migration, metamorphosis, divided selves, love, death, London and Bombay." He has also said "It's a novel which happened to contain a castigation of Western materialism. The tone is comic."

But. However. From Wikipedia:

”The title refers to the Satanic Verses, a group of Quranic verses about three pagan Meccan goddesses: Allāt, Al-Uzza, and Manāt. The part of the story that deals with the "satanic verses" was based on accounts from the historians al-Waqidi and al-Tabari.”

“The book and its perceived blasphemy motivated Islamic extremist bombings, killings, and riots and sparked a debate about censorship and religiously motivated violence. Fearing unrest, the Rajiv Gandhi government banned the importation of the book into India. In 1989, Supreme Leader of Iran Ruhollah Khomeini called for Rushdie's death, resulting in several failed assassination attempts on the author, who was granted police protection by the UK government, and attacks on connected individuals, including the Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi, who was stabbed to death in 1991. Assassination attempts against Rushdie continued, including an attempt on his life in August 2022.”

”After the Satanic Verses controversy developed, some scholars familiar with the book and the whole of Rushdie's work, like M. D. Fletcher, saw the reaction as ironic. Fletcher wrote "It is perhaps a relevant irony that some of the major expressions of hostility toward Rushdie came from those about whom and (in some sense) for whom he wrote." He said the manifestations of the controversy in Britain:

“”embodied an anger arising in part from the frustrations of the migrant experience and generally reflected failures of multicultural integration, both significant Rushdie themes. Clearly, Rushdie's interests centrally include explorations of how migration heightens one's awareness that perceptions of reality are relative and fragile, and of the nature of religious faith and revelation, not to mention the political manipulation of religion. Rushdie's own assumptions about the importance of literature parallel the literal value accorded the written word in Islamic tradition to some degree. But Rushdie seems to have assumed that diverse communities and cultures share some degree of common moral ground on the basis of which dialogue can be pieced together, and it is perhaps for this reason that he underestimated the implacable nature of the hostility evoked by The Satanic Verses, even though a major theme of that novel is the dangerous nature of closed, absolutist belief systems.””

Can’t we all get along? Apparently not.

I highly recommend this book, but it is a dense literary and satirical read. If it were not for the controversy, I suspect the novel would not be on many bookshelves. It is extremely literary, a high-end modern allegory. It is a not very disguised commentary that describes Western and Eastern societal myths in an unfavorable light. I see what Rushdie saw, I agree with his vision of the chaos and hurtfulness of human cultures and clashes.

All cultures form because of the human need to formulate a paradigm to make sense of reality, a comfortable nest to live within. These cultural formulations, brought into the world in isolation in different parts of the world, showcase the variety of human adaptation. Unfortunately, they also showcase human maladaptivity, too.

This is a banned book in many Middle-Eastern countries, of which most are dictatorial theocracies, who have laws to kill anyone with diverse lifestyles and thinking. Many of these countries have a death penalty for atheists on the books. Many of these Islamic countries have the death penalty for any Muslim who changes to another religion. Many of these countries, depending on what kind of Islam they demand of their citizens, have the death penalty for Muslims of a different religious sect of Islam. Don’t feed this theocratic insanity, gentle reader, wherever you are from. Diversity of ideas and public discussion of many ideas is a good thing! I admire flexible minds and flexible multicultural societies and I try to feel tolerance for harmless religious beliefs, if not exactly respectful, sorry. I hate, yes, hate, censorship and all organized religions. All organized religions censor and murder people with different ideas today, some more than others, full stop.

Considering the many many many many books published about these very same themes - about religious and racial hatreds, gender prejudices, politically-based hatreds, history - which are mostly all about the immoral killing off of The Other for no good reasons other than they are different - why do those who ban books bother? Banned books become bestsellers, sure enough, because they got banned. For millennia. Rushdie is in a long distinguished blockchain of authors whom small-minded evil people have tried to silence. The bad news is every generation births small-minded evil book banners and burners. Humans don’t pass down instinctual memories to their offspring. Unfortunately, every generation repeats the errors of prejudice again and again. Thankfully, we have books. Rushdie’s books will be around forever, somewhere, even if hidden in closets or passed down in the manner of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.

The Truth is hard for many to face. We shit in our own nests. We murder others for the motes we see in their eyes ignoring that it looks exactly like the one in our own eyes. How many great humans were almost murdered because of religion (Albert Einstein, for one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_...) and how many genius humans have we murdered or stifled (including a lot of genius women) who could have maybe made it possible for us to have a Mars habitat right now?

Glad I finally came to read this book. Still not really sure why this was such a controversial one. It is just a beautiful novel full of imagination and truth.

For eight days we wrestled. "The Satanic Verses" and I locked in heaving struggle. At times it nearly escaped as I chased it uphill, my straining hand holding fast its heel as it wriggled; then I myself would seek respite from the battle, clutching for the out-of-bounds only to be pulled back in. But we finished the struggle, and were better for it.

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

The novel deals with migration, intermingling, hybridization of people, religion. The novel opens with two Indian actors with British ties and sensibilities falling from a plane blown up by terrorists over England. One, Gabreel Farishta, apparently comes to Earth as the archangel Gabreel (or its avatar), wearing a golden halo. The other, Saladin Chamcha, grows into a horned, hoofed devil. The two try to come to grips with their (temporarily) changed forms and try to cope with the struggles of life, their pasts and their relationships, romantic and familial. Gabreel experiences dreams in which he apparently is 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 has himself altered these verses.

Gabreel has modern visions, as well; he supposedly inspires a village to make a pilgrimage to Mecca in which the people will cross the Arabian Sea, which they think will part for them.

When Rushdie first moves to the story of Mahound, the novel hits, temporarily, a brick wall that I was tempted not to clamber over. It is slow and disorienting at first. Our second visit to this vision, later, is much more involving. And the stories of Ayesha and her village's modern pilgrimage is by turns ponderous and incredibly beautiful (butterflies follow them, lighting on Ayesha like a blanket).

I expected to be baffled by what exactly was happening at times. I really wasn't; my problems in comprehension dealt more with just exactly what Rushdie was up to. Though I see the interconnectedness of the past and present visions and the story of Gabreel and Saladin (who slowly plots a revenge on Gabreel after the two have been separated in the wake of their miraculous fall to Earth), I occasionally was confused by just how Rushdie wanted us to relate them to each other. Just what is Rushdie, in the overall, going on about?

I really think Rushdie (and this novel in particular) would benefit greatly from end notes. Just as, with old classics, we might not in modern times understand archaic words or objects, so 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 hard to separate "The Satanic Verses" from the fatwa declared on its author that put him in fear for his life for many years. It contributed greatly to its readership (or those who owned it in curiosity and soon gave up on reading it at all). I don't claim to know much about Islam or Muhammad, though calling for someone's death because of a few small scenes in a novel seems, er, a tad extreme.

"The Satanic Verses" is a sprawling and voluminous creature. I don't think it, on the whole, is great. A paring down and a sharper focus would have helped. But Rushdie is one hell of a writer; that's what carried the day for me. If I missed some of the nuances of how all of it tied together, I delighted in Rushdie's use of language, and there are several moving scenes. A section late in the book at the death bed of a character is just lovely.

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

The controversial and conversation-stirring world of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" has been a hot topic since its publication, stirring up emotions and debates. So, what’s all the fuss about?

This is a good, at times amazing work of literature that was quite possibly the hardest thing I’ve ever read. Having re-started it twice, it took me a little over two months to read. Not everyone will like it, and I suppose that’s fine; it’s pretty evident that Rushdie didn’t write the thing for it to be universally adored. It’s the kind of book you admire more than actually love or connect with emotionally.
If you’re feeling up for a challenge, I would recommend it. Otherwise, you might want to stay away.

Salman Rushdie is a weird man. Sometimes he would write things like, “…Chamcha was going down head first, in the recommended position for babies entering the birth canal…” and “…Saladin, like a bloody lettuce, I ask you…” and he used a lot of big words I’ve never seen like “orotund” and “obsolescent” and the whole time, I kept thinking, ‘wow, Salman Rushdie made a cameo appearance in the Bridget Jones’s Diary movie and he has funny eyebrows like Jack Nicholson.’

Um. Right. This book was not an enjoyable read for me. It was dense and too long. I had to force myself to read a little bit every day because I kept picking up other books to read instead of this one. Once I made it past the first 100 pages, it became more interesting but it was still a dredge to read. I thought most of the scenes are way too drawn out. I’d have appreciated this book a whole lot more if the parts that involved Saladin and Chamcha were thinned down by a third and the parts that involved Mahound and his band of merry men and gals was beefier.

So anyway, unless you are a brainiac (and you’re probably not so quit giving yourself airs) and/or are comfortable with several facets of Indian culture and also have a comfortable working knowledge of Islam, you’re setting yourself up for failure if you decide to just sit down and noncommittally read The Satanic Verses. I don’t think that’s possible. I came close to quitting several times but didn’t, thanks largely in part to this: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/anglo...

The document is almost 100 pages long but the way I see it, if you’re actually going to put forth the commitment to read this dang book with the intention of understanding what the hell is going on, what’s an extra 100 pages? Especially if they’ll actually help you capture and understand some of the non-transparent characters and events that fill this book. It is divided up by chapters. I read the notes before starting each new chapter and referred back as necessary.

Obviously scanning this document while I was reading the book added to the length of time it took to work my way through this book. However, I feel no shame whatsoever in admitting that this book would have been so far beyond my level of comprehension if I hadn’t had the help that I don’t even care.

I'm relieved to be done with this book.

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. But then its dream sequences and odd digressions left me scratching my head - I just couldn't get my footing.

Rushdie clearly is an accomplished writer. Open the book to any page and the writing often dazzles and he's working here, juggling ideas and poking at concepts. 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. If it wasn't part of a book club read I doubt if I would have finished it.

I read this book to show solidarity with the author after he was banned by Rajiv Gandhi’s government and forced to apologies. Even some group issued fatwah calling for Rushdie's death. The result was several failed assassination attempts on Rushdie. So this was my statement for freedom of expression. I am against banning any book.

The Satanic Verses consists of a frame narrative, using elements of magical realism, interlaced with a series of sub-plots that are narrated as dream visions experienced by one of the protagonists. The book takes a moment to grasp Rushdie's complex storyline and sort through the British and Indian slang, but the effort is worth the time to both expand one's vocabulary and see his logic. His writing is extremely clever and humorous. It is a bit difficult to get started following the completely non-linear narrative.

I did find it rather long and a little disjointed, but maybe that is my shortfall, being far from a literary genius. Overall, I liked it and am glad I found out what it was all about.

Unfortunately, most people know this book from the scandal and fatwa it generated around the personage of its prolific and outspoken author Salman Rushdie rather than the book itself. The thing that enraged some Muslims (and the Ayatollah of Iran most of all) was Rushdie's hypothesis that Mohammed, being completely illiterate and having the Qu'ran being narrated to him by Archangel Gabriel could have dozed off at one point and that Satan could have impersonated Gabriel without Mohammed noticing causing some verses of the Holy Book to be written by him. That's it. Just a theory. No more than when Kazantzakis imagines Jesus fantasising about accepting Mary Magdalene's sexual advances. In Rushdie's book, this is not even the main story, just an internal narrative in a dream of a character that falls out of an airplane of all things. The book is highly imaginative and although I preferred Midnight's Children and The Moor's Last Sigh, remains for me one of his best works. So read it if for any other reason as to oppose censorship and support artistic freedom and artistic license. Especially in these days of religious fanaticism, books like Satanic Verses which challenge the status quo and force us to re-evaluate our values and idées reçu are incredibly important.

This novel caused such commotion when it was published, that it's famous for that rather than its content. Its very existence caused the death of a man and the nearly lethal injury of another, while Rushdie had to change his name and remain hidden for many years after Khomeini pronounced a death sentence on the author in 1989. What with the religious fanaticism of the Muslims, I think that Rushdie could have predicted what would follow. However, all this is by no means proof of the book's literary importance, since the latter is, of course, subject to things quite different than religious and social provocations.

First of all, while it is certainly unique in style and technique, I didn't find it so hard to follow as many have suggested, although I recognize that, ignorant as I am of most things concerning the eastern history and tradition, I was bound to miss many implications that were definitely there, despite the helpful footnotes every now and then. Therefore, one could say I missed a large part of the novel's essence. That said, I think that The Satanic Verses could now be considered a timeless, classic saga that makes social and religious prejudice and pretentiousness meet in an extremely witty, allegorical way, if only it was written differently. The reason I don't consider it such, is that I found it excessively garrulous, with Rushdie throwing in numerous useless details that tired me at some point and made me want to just get it over with. A fact that, towards the end, made me feel like he lost the point somewhere. Or maybe I did.

Despite all that, I found it fun and interesting, if a bit demanding, and definitely worthy of my time. A classic case of 3 stars.

Satanic Verses: A Composition

He had just finished his thirty-fourth reading of the play. The unsaid hate, the unseen events, the half-imagined wrongs; they tormented him. What could cause such evil to manifest, he just could not figure. He loved him too much to believe the simple explanation.

And then the idea starts growing on him - to explore the growth of evil just as Shakespeare showed, explored the tragic culmination of it. And because you show the growth, it can no longer be a tragedy, no, no it has to be a comedy. A tragicomedy. Yes. And he set to it. He painted Othello as an Indian actor, worshiped and adored and off on a mad canter to get 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 that’s asked here remains as large as ever it was: which is, the nature of evil, how it’s born, why it grows, 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? Chamcha then is Satan incarnate? Then Othello has to be God? A little bit more corruptible maybe? Let us 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 inflammatory fashion, maybe talk about the 'Satanic Verses' since his Satan can't help but gloat over his little jokes. Why not call the novel so too, 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 be cause for misunderstanding, might ruffle a few feathers, but it is just a digression, the real story is beyond that - it is 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 is it not? If Iago is Satan, then surely it is in character 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 run his plot are flowing freely now. How an ordinary man when in contact with an angel inevitably had to transform into Lucifer himself. How can one exist without the other. They meet and the spiral ensues and 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 can not be. There is the moment before evil, then the moment of, then the time after; and each subsequent stride 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.

امتیاز دقیق‌تر: 3.5

‌آشنایی‌زدایی از نویسنده
سلمان رشدی نویسنده‌ای نبود که از زیر بته بیرون آمده باشد. پیش از نوشتن آیات شیطانی چند داستان دیگر نوشته بود که مهم‌ترین آن‌ها «بچه‌های نیمه‌شب» و «شرم» هر دو به قلم مهدی سحابی ترجمه شده‌اند. «بچه‌های نیمه‌شب» دو جایزه مهم بوکر و بلک مموریال را همان سال انتشار (۱۹۸۱) می‌برد و دوازده سال بعد جایزه بوکر بوکرها را هم از آن خود می‌کند. پس از ترجمه فارسی هم در سال ۱۳۶۴ به عنوان بهترین رمان خارجی کتاب سال جمهوری اسلامی ایران انتخاب می‌شود! در داستان «شرم» سرگذشت تلخ پاکستان را از طریق سرگذشت پسری دنبال می‌کند که نمی‌داند پدر او کسیت و مادر و دو خواهرش نیز هم‌زمان به عنوان سه مادر واقعی او را پرورش می‌دهند. «بچه‌های نیمه‌شب» ولی بیشتر فضایی پسااستعماری دارد: کودکانی که در نیمه‌شب به دنیا آمده‌اند و به همین دلیل هر یک قدرتی جادویی دارند و در روندی تاریخی از استقلال هند و پاکستان تا دوران سیاه ایندرا گاندی را در بر می‌گیرد. سبک رشدی (رئالیسم جادویی) به نظرم برای انتقال محتوای پسااستعماری آثار او بسیار مناسب است.

آشنایی‌زدایی از کتاب؛ این قسمت بخش‌هایی از داستان را کاملا فاش می‌کند
آیات شیطانی هم، بر خلاف آنچه شنیده‌اید، محتوایی پسااستعماری دارد، اما نه آن‌چنان که به مذاق اسلام‌گراها (و قاطبه مسلمانان) خوش بیاید. مضمون کمدیک-تراژیک داستان از دوگانه‌ای ویرانگر تغذیه می‌شود: تفرعن غرب و تحجر اسلام. پس‌زمینه فرهنگی کتاب البته بیشتر برای هندی‌ها آشناست، اما مثلثی که برای من در آن مکشوف شد مثلث هند، اسلام و غرب بود. کتاب البته با معیارهای مسلمانی کتابی توهین‌آمیز است، اما محتوای آن را نمی‌توان به توهین (همچون یک کاریکاتور توهین‌آمیز) تقلیل داد. کتاب، در یک کلام، بیان آزاد این ادعا بود که غرب، هند را حیوان و اسلام، هند را مجنون می‌خواهد و مسیر هند چیزی جز این دوست. نمی‌دانم آیا به گمان شما سزای چنین حرفی «مرگ» است یا نه. در بخش بعد به این موضوع بر می‌گردم، اما فعلا می‌خواهم داستان را، که سبکی سیال و خیال‌انگیز هم دارد، از منظر خودم برایتان بازسازی کنم
داستان حول دو شخصیت اصلی می‌چرخد: صلاح‌الدین چامچا که بی‌شک بازتابی از زندگی خود سلمان رشدی است و جبرئیلْ فرشته که اسم و فامیل یک ستاره سینمای هند است. اولی به غرب متمایل می‌شود و دومی به اسلام. در سیر جادویی داستان، جبرئیل که بازیگری هفتاد نقش است، در تناسخ‌هایی طولی و عرضی در تاریخ، به عنوان شخصیت‌های متنوعی از جبرئیل تاریخی تا همین بازیگر کذایی ظاهر می‌شود
جبرئیل به عنوان فرشته الهی بر سه شخصیت مذهبی در کتاب ظاهر می‌شود: بر «ماهوند» (یا پیامبر)، بر «امام» (خمینی) و بر «عایشه» دختری که در یکی از روستاهای هند ادعای پیامبر می‌کند. چهره هیچ یک مگر امام سیاه و توهین‌آمیز نیست. ماهوند بسیار شبیه محمد تاریخی، دست‌کم به روایت مستشرقین و اسلام‌پژوهان روایت شده‌است. یکی از ماجراهایی که مسلمانان زیادی را خشمگین کرده بود خود ماجرای «آیات شیطانی» است: اینکه درمیانه آیاتی که پیامبر از جبرئیل دریافت می‌کند (در سوره نجم)، چند آیه در تایید بت‌ها نیز دریافت و ابلاغ می‌کند اما بعد متوجه می‌شود آن آیات القائات شیطانی بوده‌اند نه الهامات الهی. ولی جالب است بدانید این ماجرا نه ساخته رشدی، بلکه چیزی است که در برخی کتب معتبر تاریخ و سیره، از جمله تفسیر درالمنثور، صحیح بخاری و تاریخ طبری، به عنوان داستان «غرانیق» ذکر شده و آیات ۵۲-۵۳ سوره حج نیز ناظر به همین ماجراست. گذشته از آن، تصویر پیامبر تا پیش از فتح مکه چهره‌ یک مصلح است. پس از فتح مکه داستان از سمت سلمان روایت می‌شود. سلمانی که از تعدد احکام اسلام خسته شده و به آن مشکوک است. سلمانی که چیزی بیشتر از نامش او را به نویسنده نزدیک می‌کند: شک او

دارد می‌آید. از کوه حرا بالا می‌رود تا به غار برسد. تولدت مبارک. امروز به چهل و چهارسالگی رسیده ولی با اینکه شهری که پشت سر و زیر پایش گسترده پر از ازدحام است و هیاهوی جشن و سرور است، همچنان تک و تنها از کوه بالا می‌رود. به مناسبت روز تولدش لباس تازه‌ای نپوشیده. لباس تازه‌اش تمیز و مرتب پایین تختش همچنان تاشده مانده‌است، چرا که وی مردی است زاهدمنش. (این دیگر چه تاجر عجیب و غریبی است؟)
سوال:‌ نقطه مقابل ایمان چیست؟
نه جواب بی‌ایمانی نیست. چرا که بی‌ایمانی بیش از اندازه قاطع و مسلم است. بی‌ایمانی خود گونه‌ای ایمان است.
شک

عایشه نیز زنی است که قرن‌ها بعد، در دهکده‌ای مسلمان‌نشین ادعای پیامبری می‌کند، افراد زیادی را با خود همراه می‌کند و نهایتا برای اینکه مانند موسی از دریا به مکه وارد شوند همه را با خود به آب می‌برد و به کشتن می‌دهد. تنها امام است که تصویری یکسره سیاه دارد. کسی که هرچند دربرابر ظلم قیام کرده، اما خود نیز ظالمی است که در تصویری رعب‌آمیز وضعیت ظاهری‌اش تغییر می‌کند، سوار بر جبرئیل از پاریس به تهران می‌رود تا جشن پیروزی خود را مشاهده کند و دست آخر نیز پیروان خودش را می‌بلعد

از سوی دیگر صلاح‌الدین از ابتدا مایل به غرب می‌شود. به انگلستان می‌رود، آن بهشت هندی‌ها. از دبستان وارد لندنی می‌شود که همیشه خوابش را می‌دید، اما تحقیر نصیبش می‌شود و تحقیر کردن را یاد می‌گیرد

تازه مدرسه را شروع کرده بود که روزی هنگام صبحانه نوعی ماهی دودی در بشقابش دید و همانطور که روی صندلی نشسته بود به آن خیره ماند. نمی‌دانست از کجای ماهی باید شروع کند. سرانجام لقمه‌ای از آن را به دهان برد. پر از تیغ‌های ریز بود. همه از دهانش در آورد. ولی لقمه بعدی هم همانطور بود. در سکوت رنج می‌کشید و هم‌شاگردی‌هایش تماشایش می‌کردند. حتی یکی از آنها نگفت بگذار نشانت بدهد ماهی را چگونه باید بخوری. نود دقیقه طول کشید تا همه ماهی را خورد. اجازه نداشت تا پایان کار از پشت میز خود برخیزد. آن آخرها بدنش به لرزه درآمده بود و اگر می‌توانست حتما گریه می‌کرد. آن‌وقت این به ذهنش رسید که درس مهمی گرفته است: انگلستان ماهی دودی‌ای بود که مزه‌ای خاص و تیغ‌های فراوان داشت و هرگز کسی به او نمی‌آموخت که چگونه باید آن را بخورد

تجربه صلاح‌الدین از غرب یکسره تحقیر است. بخاطر سخت بودن نام صلاح‌الدین او را صلدین می‌خوانند و او هم همین نام را بر می‌گزیند. همسرش پاملا از تلاش رقت‌بار او برای انگلیسی بودن متنفر است و دست آخر او را ترک می‌کند. آخر سر هم یک دوبلر حرفه‌ای می‌شود، کسی که صدای سیب‌زمینی یخ‌زده یا کنسرو لوبیا را بی‌نقص در می‌آورد اما هیچ‌وقت چهره‌اش دیده نمی‌شود؛ چون مناسب دیده شدن نیست. صلدین مدتی به هند باز می‌گردد. در آنجا با وکیلی به نام زینی آشنا می‌شود. زینی آشکارا تحقیر شدن او را به رویش می‌آورد. صلدین اما دل‌بسته زینی می‌شود. با این همه هنوز دلبستگی‌اش به لندن بیشتر است. پس او را رها می‌کند و باز می‌گردد. در بازگشت هواپیمای آنها سقوط می‌کند و او و جبرئیل فرشته تنها مسافرانی هستند که به طرز معجزه‌واری نجات می‌یابند و در انگلستان فرود می‌آیند (خود کتاب از همین سقوط شروع می‌شود). پلیس گشت صلدین را پیدا می‌کند ولی او که مدتهاست شهروند انگلستان است اما صورت هندی‌اش هیچگاه این را گواه نمی‌دهد و حالا هم که پس از این سقوط و زنده ماندن هیچ مدرکی ندارد به عنوان مهاجر غیرقانونی وارد ون پلیس می‌شود. برخوردی که با صلدین در ون می‌شود جزو تکان‌دهنده‌ترین صحنه‌هاست، تحقیر او به حدی است که ماهیت او را به یک بز تغییر می‌دهد. بزی که بعدهای خود را درمیان حیوانات دیگر، مهاجران بی‌مقدار دیگر کشورها، می‌یابد

پس از چرخ‌های بسیار، آخر داستان صلاح‌الدین و جبرئیل دوباره به هم می‌رسند: جبرئیل پس از اقامت دائمش در تاریخ اسلام و صلاح‌الدین پس از اقامت دائمش در قلب غرب: جبرئیل که به جنون رسیده اطرافیانش و نهایتا خودش را به کشتن می‌دهد و صلاح‌الدین که شاهد این خودکشی است تازه پس از آن است که می‌تواند به هند باز گردد

جبرئیل فرشته به آرامی گفت: «خیلی وقت پیش به تو گفته بودن که اگر بدانم این مرض دیگر راحتم نمی‌گذارد و همیشه عود می‌کند نمی‌توانم تحملش کنم». به سرعت و پیش از آنکه صلاح‌الدین بتواند ماتع شود اسلحه را در دهان خود گذاشت و ماشه را کشید..
جبرئیل آزاد شد

کنار پنجره ایستاده بود و به بیرون می‌نگریست. ماه بدر تمام بود. سرش را تکان داد. کودکی تمام شده بود. به درک! بگذار بولدوزرها بیایند. اگر قدیمی‌ها از مرگ سر باز زنند تازه‌ها نمی‌توانند متولد شوند

صدای زینت وکیل از پشت سرش گفت: «بیا برویم». انگار علی‌رغم همه اشتباهات، شرارت‌ها و گناهانش شانس دیگری به او داده می‌شد. بله، این دفعه شانس آورده بود. زینی گفت: «بیا برویم خانه من».
صلاح‌الدین به سوی او چرخید و گفت: «برویم» ر


خون و قلم: این بخش یک نوشته «سیاسی» نیست
کتاب آیات شیطانی سال ۱۹۸۸ به زبان انگلیسی چاپ شد. کمتر از یک سال بعد، پیش از آنکه ترجمه‌ای از این کتاب به فارسی و یا حتی عربی به چاپ رسیده باشد فتوای آقای خمینی درباره به شرح زیر به چاپ رسید که می گفت: «به اطلاع مسلمانان غیور سراسر جهان می‌رسانم مؤلف کتاب «آیات شیطانی» که علیه اسلام و پیامبر و قرآن، تنظیم و چاپ و منتشر شده است، همچنین ناشرین مطلع از محتوای آن، محکوم به اعدام می‌باشند. از مسلمانان غیور می‌خواهم تا در هر نقطه که آنان را یافتند، سریعاً آنها را اعدام نمایند تا دیگر کسی جرأت نکند به مقدسات مسلمین توهین نماید و هر کس در این راه کشته شود، شهید است ان‌شاءاللّه‌. » ... حتی پس از آنکه آقای خامنه‌ای (امام جمعه وقت) گفته بود اگر سلمان رشدی «توبه کند، کتاب بنویسد، غلط کردم بگوید، از مسلمان‌هاى دنیا، از امام امت عذرخواهى کند، بگوید اشتباه کردم، کتاب مال من نیست، که البته در این صورت ممکن است مردم گناه او را ببخشند»، آقای خمینی در پیام بعدی تصریح کرده بود که «سلمان رشدی اگر توبه کند و زاهد زمان هم گردد، بر هر مسلمان واجب است با جان و مال تمامی همّ خود را به کار گیرد تا او را به دَرک واصل گرداند.» ر
این حکم البته لکه ننگ و مایه تاسف است در کارنامه فقه شیعه که بر اثر جو زمانه و برای عقب نیفتادن از اعتراضات مسلمانان هند و پاکستان ناگهان پاسخ یک کتاب (هرچند توهین‌آمیز) را با تهدیر خون نویسنده و ناشر می‌دهد. ولی ننگین‌تر از این شاید اهل قلمی بودند که برای نشان دادن ایمان دینی یا وفاداری سیاسی (امیدوارم که دومی بوده باشد) بجای یا در کنار نقد کتاب، اتفاق وحشتناکی که بعد این حکم برای نویسنده افتاد را به سخره گرفتند. پیش از بررسی دو نمونه بخشی از مدخل «آیات شیطانی» ویکی‌پدیا را بخوانید تا ببینید تبعات آن حکم چه بود
پس از فرمان روح‌الله خمینی مبنی برکشتن سلمان رشدی افرادی در صدد اجرای این حکم برآمدند از جمله «مصطفی مازح» جوان لبنانی که پیش از همه توانسته بود با پاسپورت فرانسوی وارد هتل محل اقامت سلمان رشدی شود ولی در روز حادثه با انفجار زودهنگام بمبی که برای کشتن رشدی کار گذاشته بود، از هدفش بازماند و کشته شد. کتاب رفته‌رفته در کنیا، تایلند، تانزانیا، اندونزی، سنگاپور و نهایتاً ونزوئلا [هم] ممنوع گشت. در سال ۱۹۹۱ مترجم آیات شیطانی به ژاپنی، هیتوشی ایگاریشی در توکیو با ضربات چاقو کشته شد، و به مترجم ایتالیایی کتاب هم در میلان حمله شد. در سال ۱۹۹۳ ناشر نروژی کتاب مورد حمله مسلحانه قرار گرفت. در همین سال عزیز نسین مترجم کتاب به ترکی در هتلی در شهر سیواس مورد حمله قرار گرفت. هرچند نسین توانست از هتل فرار کند ولی در پی به آتش کشیده شدن هتل ۳۳ نفر کشته شدند. این واقعه به کشتار سیواس معروف شد. دفتر نشر «نیما» که ترجمه فارسی این کتاب را منتشر کرده بود به آتش کشیده شد و نیما نعمتی مدیر این انتشارات بارها تهدید شد. سردبیر مجله «خلق» چاپ سلیمانیه که بخشی از ترجمه کردی این کتاب را در سال ۲۰۱۰ منتشر کرده بود هدف حمله مسلحانه قرار گرفت. سردبیر از این حادثه جان سالم بدر برد ولی برمک بهداد مترجم کتاب از آن زمان پنهان شده‌است در حالی‌که تعدادی از روحانیون سلیمانیه و اربیل حکم قتل وی را صادر کرده‌اند

در تمام این مدت نویسنده کتاب (به گفته خودش در یکی از مصاحباتش) زندگانی مخفی داشت، بسیاری از هواپیمایی‌ها از ترس ترور نویسنده به او بلیط نمی‌فروختند و تمام مدت پلیس اسکاتلندیارد همراه او بود. این سختی و فلاکت دستمایه خنده برخی از اصحاب فرهنگی ما بود تا نشان دهند چوب خدا صدا ندارد. از جمله عطاالله مهاجرانی در داستانی کوتاه «اسب شطرنج» که اسفند ۷۴ در مجله کلک (و بعدتر در پیش‌گفتار کتاب ‌نقد توطئه آیات شیطانی) چاپ شد با تمسخر به این واقعیت اشاره می‌کند که نویسنده مدت‌هاست در اتاقی در یک هتل زندانی شده و پلیس همیشه پشت در اوست و خود در را هفت‌قفله کرده، همسرش از او طلاق گرفته و دیگر هیچ دوستی ندارد و حتی همسرش نیز او را ترک کرده زیرا همه می‌ترسند بخاطر آن حکم آنها هم کشته شوند. نمی‌دانم امروز که مهاجرانی خود نیز «نویسنده‌»ای است که از ترس بازداشت در غربت و تنهایی به سر می‌برد راجع به آن تمسخر‌ها در خلوت خود چه فکر می‌کند
ولی مهاجرانی تنها کسی نبود که این ترس و تنهایی را به مسخره گرفت. رضا امیرخانی نیز در نوشتاری به نام «انا له لحافظون، نقدي بر كتابِ آياتِ شيطاني» (که هنوز روی سایت خودش قابل جست‌وجوست) نیز همین رویه را پیش گرفته‌است. در بخشی از نوشته امیرخانی قرار است برخی از تبعات فتوای امام را بخوانیم. از نظر او «خاله‌زنكي‌ترينش مسئله اعتذارِ خودِ رشدي بود كه چون بچه‌ي خردسالي به عذرخواهي افتاد. سياسي‌ترينش مسئله خروجِ هم‌زمانِ همه‌ي سفراي جامعه‌ي اروپايي بود، در اعتراض به فتوا. و به‌ترينِ تبعاتش ناامني براي اهانت‌كننده به مقدسات اسلام بود.» ... بله، اعتذار خود رشدی برای اینکه از سایه قتلی بی‌خبر خلاص شود، که خود را سزاوار آن نمی‌داند، برای نویسنده جوان ما «خاله‌زنکی» و بچگانه است

در میان تمام این نقدهای جانانه که بخش مهمی از هم و غم خود را به توجیه حکم اعدام یک نویسنده تخصیص داده‌اند، اما، عجیب آن است که هیچ کس این سوال را نپرسید: آیا آیت‌الله خمینی پیش از آنکه حکم ارتداد نویسنده را بدهد کتاب را خوانده بود؟