Satanic Versus
John Eritsu
I have not read this book by Salman Rushdie.
One person I met stated that he raid this book. Further he found that
all assertions in that book are actually Hadith material from Shia
sources. He claimed that this was the reason that Khomeini got so upset
with Salman Rushdie, and Sunni muslims kept silent about it.
I am just quoting some one. Is there any truth about it, that people who
have read the book can comment on?
A Hirsi
John Eritsu wrote:
> I have not read this book by Salman Rushdie.
I don't know why you are dredging this accursed book up
but here is brother Ahmed Deedat's response to it.
http://jamaat.net/rushdie/Rushdie.html
A Hirsi
glip...@clouded.com
wrote:
>
>I have not read this book by Salman Rushdie.
>One person I met stated that he raid this book. Further he found that
>all assertions in that book are actually Hadith material from Shia
>sources.
I read it. It is not about Islam. It is a book of "fantastic realism"
that explores the inside of a character who appears to be mentally
ill, perhaps schizophrenic. The controversial passages are the dreams
of this character. Symbols, images and narratives of Islam fuel the
dreams, but they express the inner confusion and skewed reality of the
main character.
Unfortunately, Muslims as a group do not seem to respect, nor engage
in the study of the arts. Thus, when they encounter fiction they don't
really know how to read it. Hence, entire realms of meaning are lost
to them, in favor of a restricted and self-referential world view,
which leads to constricted and proscribed analysis. They do this to
the Qur'an too--- ignoring and rejecting possibilities for meaning.
Even this thread shows that restriction.... groupism (in this case
religious sectarianism) becomes the filter through which all is
seen... there is no participation in, nor movement towards
self-transcendence that can be initiated by an encounter with art.
The question would be: what do these dream narratives mean *to that
character*??
John Eritsu
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:44:38 CST, John Eritsu <Eri...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I have not read this book by Salman Rushdie.
>>One person I met stated that he raid this book. Further he found that
>>all assertions in that book are actually Hadith material from Shia
>>sources.
>
>
> I read it. It is not about Islam. It is a book of "fantastic realism"
> that explores the inside of a character who appears to be mentally
> ill, perhaps schizophrenic. The controversial passages are the dreams
> of this character. Symbols, images and narratives of Islam fuel the
> dreams, but they express the inner confusion and skewed reality of the
> main character.
I take your word on it. Thanks for sharing it.
>
> Unfortunately, Muslims as a group do not seem to respect, nor engage
> in the study of the arts.
This is not true. Islamic art is very different from EuroAmerican art.
Neither one values the art of the other. But that is no problem with me.
People have their own ideas of what art is, and what art they like.
I think you made the statement in good conscience, but it is incorrect.
> Thus, when they encounter fiction they don't
> really know how to read it.
There is lot of fiction in Islamic literature. You perhaps mean
EuroAmerican fiction.
Ever heard of 1001 nights, for example?
> Hence, entire realms of meaning are lost
> to them, in favor of a restricted and self-referential world view,
> which leads to constricted and proscribed analysis.
I think you have a point here, if you would make this point for ALL
religious right, and not just to Muslims.
All fundamentalists have a world view that is skewed by their self
righteousness. Ever heard of Whichcraft? Ever heard of Medieval
aristocracy with no place for women in social, economic, or political
arenas within the entire EuroAmerica? Ever heard of Galileo and the Church?
> They do this to
> the Qur'an too--- ignoring and rejecting possibilities for meaning.
Again I think you have a point, provided you explicitly extend the
statement to all religious right. Christians read the bible in a tunnel
vision too, and so do the Jews with old testament and Talmud. The result
is that the same OLD TESTAMENT means vastly different things to the
Christians and to the Jews and they both BELIEVE in it. Tunnell vision.
>
> Even this thread shows that restriction.... groupism (in this case
> religious sectarianism) becomes the filter through which all is
> seen
There is nothing like that in the original post. Yes there is mention of
Shia and Sunni reaction, but that is an account of what happened to a
large extent. The reasons cited in the original posy may however be invalid.
... there is no participation in, nor movement towards
> self-transcendence that can be initiated by an encounter with art.
This is your idea about art. In general there is no purpose of art that
focuses on self transcendence or any such thing. Art is art and that is
where it stops, and that is a beuty of art. Art is not engineering or
political campaigns or spiritual endeavours. No such thing. It can mean
some of that to you, and that would be valid because art does not insist
how it should be viewed.
klei...@astound.net
glipg...@clouded.com wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:44:38 CST, John Eritsu <Eri...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >I have not read this book by Salman Rushdie.
>
> that explores the inside of a character who appears to be mentally
> ill, perhaps schizophrenic.
I have read it, too. I think it was not a very good book. "Glipg..."
has described it very well, but it seems to me that the original post
wanted to know about the alleged "Hadith" material in the book.
There is a considerable amount of material in the book that might be
ultimately derived from some Hadith or other, but everything has been
filtered through a crazed narrator (probably Salman Rushdie doing his
level best to think like a lunatic). However the Sirat seems to me to
have been more important than the Hadiths. Perhaps the originator of
the idea made no distinction between Hadith and Sirat.
In any case - it is just a story. Salman Rushdie does not pretend to be
an Islamic scholar and this book certainly proves he isn't.
John Eritsu
> I have read it, too. I think it was not a very good book. "Glipg..."
> has described it very well, but it seems to me that the original post
> wanted to know about the alleged "Hadith" material in the book.
Yes indeed. That is what I wanted to know. Thank you.
>
> There is a considerable amount of material in the book that might be
> ultimately derived from some Hadith or other, but everything has been
> filtered through a crazed narrator (probably Salman Rushdie doing his
> level best to think like a lunatic).
I have not read the book. So I have to take your word for it.
As regard filtering the narrative or assertions through one's own ideas
and prehjudices, I understand it stands in the way of what they call
objectivity, nevertheless it is so hard to not apply the filter.
When muslims read hadith, they too apply their own filter to what they read.
> However the Sirat seems to me to
> have been more important than the Hadiths.
I could not agree with you more strongly on this. At the same time the
Hadith is the only source of Seerah that is available and reliable. The
historical accounts are also available but they seem so much lacking in
rigour and discipline compared to the Hadith.
So, while I strongly agree with your assertion, I also maintain that
Hadith being a very poor source of the Seerah, the Seerah is unknown to
Muslims. As such that part of the guidance is lost. This is true despite
the considerable population of muslims who insist upon using Hadith as
if it were Seerah.
glip...@clouded.com
>glip...@clouded.com wrote:
>> I read it. It is not about Islam. It is a book of "fantastic realism"
>> that explores the inside of a character who appears to be mentally
>> ill, perhaps schizophrenic. The controversial passages are the dreams
>> of this character. Symbols, images and narratives of Islam fuel the
>> dreams, but they express the inner confusion and skewed reality of the
>> main character.
>
>I take your word on it. Thanks for sharing it.
That isn't to say we could not move into exploring those passages...
some think he used them to make fun of Khomenie (sp?)
>> Unfortunately, Muslims as a group do not seem to respect, nor engage
>> in the study of the arts.
>
>This is not true.
It is in my experience. Rarely have I encountered a Muslim who wasn't
educated in the natural sciences to the detriment of their education
in the arts and humanities. i.e. lots of physicians, engineers,
computer scientists, very few psychologists, philosophers,
anthropologists, sociologists, etc. And then, those in the natural
sciences seem to have *no* education in other areas, and so cannot
appreciate them. They've never taken courses in any other topics.
> Islamic art is very different from EuroAmerican art.
True.
>Neither one values the art of the other.
Huh? There are often museum tours here of the various examples of
Islamic art, from various times and cultures. It is greatly
appreciated by many.
Muslims as a group, however, are unable to appreciate representational
art.
>People have their own ideas of what art is, and what art they like.
Art does rise above the purely subjective. It is not just a matter of
the decorative.
>I think you made the statement in good conscience, but it is incorrect.
Or perhaps at just too surface of a level.
>> Thus, when they encounter fiction they don't
>> really know how to read it.
>
>There is lot of fiction in Islamic literature. You perhaps mean
>EuroAmerican fiction.
>
>Ever heard of 1001 nights, for example?
I'm thinking more in terms of contemporary writing and extensive
traditions of fictional writing. Do Muslim universities offer series
of courses on drama or the literature of particular lands as do
American universities? For instance, you might take American or
English lit or drama, African-American fiction, etc.
>> Hence, entire realms of meaning are lost
>> to them, in favor of a restricted and self-referential world view,
>> which leads to constricted and proscribed analysis.
>
>I think you have a point here, if you would make this point for ALL
>religious right, and not just to Muslims.
Oh! Absolutely!
>> They do this to
>> the Qur'an too--- ignoring and rejecting possibilities for meaning.
>
>Again I think you have a point, provided you explicitly extend the
>statement to all religious right.
Absolutely. The underlying dynamics appear to be the same.
> ... there is no participation in, nor movement towards
>> self-transcendence that can be initiated by an encounter with art.
>
>This is your idea about art.
No. That is not my idea. It comes from philosophers of art such as
Susanne Langer.
>In general there is no purpose of art that
>focuses on self transcendence or any such thing.
I would strongly disagree! Art is absolutely about transcendence. Keep
in mind, I would distinguish between a "craft" and "art". For
instance, songwriting can be a craft-- you take theory and make a song
that may or may not rise to the level of a work of art.
>Art is art and that is
>where it stops,
Oh no! Art is very, very powerful. That is why it often frightens and
angers people as well as inspires them.
> and that is a beuty of art. Art is not engineering or
>political campaigns or spiritual endeavours.
Art is *very* close to spirituality, and indeed, it could be argued it
is a form of spirituality. After all, art is an arena where we see The
Creative in action.
Think of the whole philosophy behind traditional Qur'anic illustration
and the abaresque attempting to reflect a tawheedian world view.
Art and religion go hand in hand.
John Eritsu
It is getting too difficult to read when we comment in line. So here are
few things.
1. Universities in most Islamic countries have faculty of art. The usual
art, as understood in other universities, is practiced there in teaching
and research.
2. The rumours I heard about Satanic Verses is that it attacks Prophet
Mohammad, not Khomeini.
3. We differ in our understanding of what art is. In particular I
disagree with your claim that art is very close to spirituality and
religion. But this is not I think the forum to prolong that discussion.
Dont get me wrong I love art and enjoy it very much. But I never view it
through religion or spirituality, but through human expressions.
hajj abujamal
John Eritsu wrote:
> 1. Universities in most Islamic countries have faculty of art.
> The usual art, as understood in other universities, is
> practiced there in teaching and research.
Fabricating attractions, when humans do it, rises to the level of
art on occasion. Adoration of such human artifacts, or reverence toward
them or their crafters, is a frequently-travelled road to idolatry. The
arts developed in Islamic universities certainly include an
understanding of that art of making things seeming fair to the beholder.
> 2. The rumours I heard about Satanic Verses is that it attacks
> Prophet Mohammad, not Khomeini.
See http://www.muslimamerica.net/ma/garaniq.htm
Salman Rushdie's book attacks nothing ~ it's a fictional narrative
of psychotic delusion like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or
Metamorphosis or 1984, except that it's much more insipid and
unimaginative. The attraction of the book is that its author is
non-white: literate materialist insanity appears to be transmittable to
other branches of the human family, maybe democracy is contagious. Had
it not been someone's agenda to incite rioting on some flimsy pretext,
it would have disappeared into the sewers of European mentality and been
forgotten. Rushdie was in Spokane this weekend at a book signing,
that's how far he's scraping the bottom of the barrel for liberals to
pat him on the head and praise his heroism for writing tripe and getting
it noticed.
> 3. We differ in our understanding of what art is.
You speak as if the difference is reflected in "Wherefore art thou,
O Romeo?" when the real difference is opinion about particular varieties
of "art" defined as "an esthetically pleasing and meaningful arrangement
of elements, as words, sounds, colors, shapes, etc.; also the
productions embodying such arrangements," whether or not restricted to
"forms of human activity whose chief character is determined by such
arrangement, as literature or music, and especially painting, sculpture,
drawing, etc.," but commonly "a pursuit or occupation requiring great
skill and an aim of perfection to produce a human accomplishment of
meaningful substance."
The art of the faithful is devotion. We seek to shape and mold a
life ~ out own ~ that is esthetically pleasing, meaningful, and
substantial, by the pursuit of a known spectrum of elemental human
activities arranged without discordance. The means for this is a
tremendous body of cultural artifact in which visual and plastic arts,
as well as oratory arts, and music, have in fact played substantial
roles. Architecture, for example, has been an art for much longer than
Frank Lloyd Wright or even the Gothic cathedrals of Europe, and is one
of the basic enterprises of human society articulated and promoted by Islam.
So should you wish to contend that daVinci's paintings were the
opposite of or unrelated to his personal spirituality and religion, and
merely support of a ruling ("royal") class pandering to the opiate of
the masses and superstitions of his time, few would disagree; or that
Picasso's dismembered representations or Dali's distorted self-portraits
are not of any spiritual or religious substance, few would disagree.
But for someone or something to attain to "art" requires a spirit of
devotion and a pursuit of a religious character ~ art is, almost by
definition, a religious devotion to something, whether expressive
painting or composing or a majestic undertaking of architecture or
providing relief and restoration from a tsunami. Art is not restricted
to the fields of pleasing the senses and entertainment, it is defined by
the artist in its form and substance, and recognized or not by the
witness to it.
> In particular I disagree with your claim that art is very
> close to spirituality and religion. But this is not I think
> the forum to prolong that discussion. Don't get me wrong I
> love art and enjoy it very much. But I never view it through
> religion or spirituality, but through human expressions.
When every living creature other than man sees us as a supreme
being, the influence on us of that near-sighted perception can be very
strong, the moreso since we appear able to do whatever we determine to
do. Human expression, however, is a gift, it does not make anyone ~ or
produce ~ a god. Some people forget that.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:d3fana$rvv$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
<snip> ...
> ... Is there any truth about it, that people who
> have read the book can comment on?
Comment:-
Part of the 'truth' is the overreaction to it in some parts of the Muslim
world. If no 'fatwa' had been issued (for whatever reason and I doubt most
of them) it would probably would have remained an obscure relic on the
shelves. The 'fatwa' turned it into a best-seller and the author into a
celebrated victim.
I ask myself did Khomeini actually read the book or was his reaction based
on emotional hearsay?
As an observation, in an altruistic sense, think about blasphemy as a
capital crime. Now consider how many messages in SRI could be construed as
being blasphemous in a faith context, Islam or otherwise? Would we support
such a 'fatwa' against a Muslim who profaned, say, for example, Christ or
the Bible, or just vice versa? Does capital punishment then suit the crime?
But, perhaps, the on-going debate is really affectional as is often the
case. Ho-hum!
--
Peace
--
Examine what is said, not him who speaks. -Arabic Proverb
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
glip...@clouded.com
wrote:
>
>It is getting too difficult to read when we comment in line.
If that is too difficult than you are probably over your head
attempting to approach the issues of art, spirituality, literature,
Rushdie and the Muslim reaction to him.
>So here are
>few things.
>
>1. Universities in most Islamic countries have faculty of art. The usual
>art, as understood in other universities, is practiced there in teaching
>and research.
A statement without backup. How about some clear, researched support
for this? Is there an equivalent in Muslim universities of Art History
as taught in American universities? I don't know, but I highly doubt
it.
There is also a big difference between studying the techniques of
production in the various arts (i.e. form, composition, skill, theory,
etc.) and the meanings communicated through art.
>2. The rumours I heard about Satanic Verses is that it attacks Prophet
>Mohammad, not Khomeini.
"Rumors" are not a substitute for intellectual/academic study,
research or exploration.
>3. We differ in our understanding of what art is. In particular I
>disagree with your claim that art is very close to spirituality and
>religion.
Based on what, exactly? My view is based on at least *some* study of
what you call "sunnat Allah".
Try "The Courage to Create" by Rollo May to get you started. Try
"Creativity and the Veil of Addiction" by Linda Schierse Leonard. And,
as mentioned, Susanne Langer's work on the topic of art such as
"Philosophy in a New Key" and then her "Feeling and Form".
>But this is not I think the forum to prolong that discussion.
That strikes me as very odd.
>Dont get me wrong I love art and enjoy it very much. But I never view it
>through religion or spirituality, but through human expressions.
Um, religion and spirituality are human expressions as well.
Islamic art in particular is *intimately* linked with the Islamic
spirituality of tawheed. That is very, very clear. The Islamic
abaresque is *explicity* attempting to communicate something about
tawheed in visual form.
If you actually "loved" art I'd think you would be motivated to
actually study it a bit.
glip...@clouded.com
<azu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I ask myself did Khomeini actually read the book or was his reaction based
>on emotional hearsay?
My understanding is he did not read the book.
A clearly "anti-intellectual" stance, but Muslims cannot blame "the
Other" for such leaders... as was hypothesized in another thread.