What is the book about, and why did Muslims get so upset about it?

Muslims get upset about everything and anything. Don't know the details about the satanic verses, but it was something to do with them thinking it was blasphemous. But, geez, what isn't these days with the muslims?

Read it and tell us...

I've read the book, have it in pdf format. It seems pretty boring to me the same as "DaVinci code", may be because I'm not a literazzi though.

Judging from commentaries the controversy was caused by parts of SV that parody episode in life of Mohamed described by Al-Tabari when Shaitan casts a false revelation on the Messenger of God's tongue, which he later repels. That would be Sura an-Najm (Star) 53:19-22 and Sura Hajj (Pilgrimage) 22.52-53

.
THE FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE THAT.....
Muhammad was tutored by SATAN [in introducing error into the Koran,....error which was later supposedly purged],

THIS IS WHAT Muhammad ADMITTED HIMSELF.
.....AND THAT ADMISSION WAS THE START OF THE Satanic Verses CONTROVERSY WITHIN ISLAM.




"Most people associate “the Satanic verses” with the notorious novel by Salman Rushdie. In 1989, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie for writing this book — and this death sentence has been perpetually reaffirmed by Iranian leaders, though no assassin has yet carried it out.
But Rushdie did not invent the “Satanic verses.” The term actually refers to an incident, recorded in Islamic tradition and referred to in Sura 53, in which Satan, not Allah, spoke through Muhammad’s mouth. The verses that the devil gave to the Prophet of Islam have been known thereafter as “the Satanic verses.” "
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2008/10/022921print.html



Google,
site:http://www.jihadwatch.org/ "Satanic Verses"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.jihadwatch.org%2F+%22Satanic+Verses%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:

Read it and tell us...

Surely one of the millions of Muslims that read it, before enthusiastically anticipating his murder, might be able to tell us. They are very sharp afterall.

locutius wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 12:28pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 8th, 2008 at 2:58pm: Read it and tell us... Surely one of the millions of Muslims that read it, before enthusiastically anticipating his murder, might be able to tell us. They are very sharp afterall.

locutius ,

LOL!!!!

Very good!

Touche!!



+++++++


abu said,

Quote:

Muhammad (pbuh) said "The Muslim should be sharp, he never gets bitten from the same place twice" Also the Islamic texts constantly implore the Muslims to seek knowledge, and to gain education, that really doesn't fit in with the 'easier to deceive' blind followers you seem to envisage. Doesn't mean some people don't exist like that, no doubt they do, as they do in all religions, that's just part of human nature, some are leaders, some are followers.

Yadda- where did muhammed claim to be 'tutored by satan'?

quote? reference?

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 1:15pm:

Yadda- where did muhammed claim to be 'tutored by satan'? quote? reference?

Gaybriel,

I can find this.

But i will not right now.

You know how it is,
....So much to do, so little time.





But basically the story goes that, Muhammad had claimed that the Koran was given to him by Allah
....[and i have no doubt that it was Allah, who gave the words of the Koran to Muhammad].

When a serious contradiction of ISLAMIC faith was pointed out,
i.e. that muslims could worship 2 female deities, alongside worshipping Allah,
i.e. thus making ISLAM a NON-monotheistic faith.

Duh!!!!

Spit! spit!!!!

Muhammad claimed he had been deceived ['tutored'] by SATAN, in reciting certain parts of the Koran.

The offending 'revelation' [i.e. the SATANIC verses] were purged from the Koran.



Gaybriel,

If you are really interested.

Look this up yourself.




Please Gaybriel, seek the truth for yourself.

Yadda- please stop speaking down to me. I'm not retarded.

as for independent investigation- like you said- so much to do, so little time.

I'm currently doing my phd- so I don't have the time to look up every single piece of information you post into these forums. I find out what I can with the time I have.

the whole concept of a forum is that people exchange information and views, so please stop acting like I am somehow requesting something bizarre by asking you to back up the things you say with a reference. especially something so big as 'muhammed was tutored by the devil'

ok? great.

Gaybriel, in case you think he is making it up, I have seen similar claims before and I suspect Abu agrees with them.

There is also apparently another part of the Koran which was destroyed a few centuries after Muhammed because the clerics (ie the ones that don't exist) found it too disturbing.

Here are The satanic Verses. The highlighted part of text later was deleted.

Quote:

Near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!) (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat? These are the exalted cranes whose intercession is to be hoped for. What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!

an-Najm 53:19-22

That sounds like a parody of Shakespeare and Chinese poetry. Can anyone explain what it's about?

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 5:12pm:

That sounds like a parody of Shakespeare and Chinese poetry. Can anyone explain what it's about?

Quote:

Allat, according to recent study of the complicated inspirational evidence, is believed to have been introduced into Arabia from Syria, and to have been the moon goddess of North Arabia. If this is the correct interpretation of her character, she corresponded to the moon deity of South Arabia, Almaqah, `Vadd, `Amm or Sin as he was called, the difference being only the oppositeness of gender. Mount Sinai (the name being an Arabic feminine form of Sin) would then have been one of the centers of the worship of this northern moon goddess. Similarly, al-`Uzza is supposed to have come from Sinai, and to have been the goddess of the planet Venus. As the moon and the evening star are associated in the heavens, so too were Allat and al-`Uzza together in religious belief, and so too are the crescent and star conjoined on the flags of Arab countries today. Prior to the rise of Islam, these three goddesses were associated with Allah as his daughters and all were worshiped at Mecca and other places in the vicinity.

(The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan)

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 4:31pm:

Gaybriel, in case you think he is making it up, I have seen similar claims before and I suspect Abu agrees with them. There is also apparently another part of the Koran which was destroyed a few centuries after Muhammed because the clerics (ie the ones that don't exist) found it too disturbing.

I don't think he's making it up- I just want to see the original reference so I can check it out myself :)

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 5:45pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 4:31pm: Gaybriel, in case you think he is making it up, I have seen similar claims before and I suspect Abu agrees with them. There is also apparently another part of the Koran which was destroyed a few centuries after Muhammed because the clerics (ie the ones that don't exist) found it too disturbing. I don't think he's making it up- I just want to see the original reference so I can check it out myself :)

I gave original references. Did you check them?

tallowood,


Quote:

As the moon and the evening star are associated in the heavens, so too were Allat and al-`Uzza together in religious belief, and so too are the crescent and star conjoined on the flags of Arab countries today.

Actually crescent and star are Turkish symbols, and appear on the flag of Turkey and a few other nations, mostly non-Arabic ones. In fact only two Arabic countries have the Crescent and star in their flags as you can see in this map of flags of the Arabic world:

http://www.library.ex.ac.uk/awdu/images/ArabWorld.jpg

They are the North African nations of Tunisia and Algeria. And this is probably because of their close ties with the Ottomans in later times.


Quote:

Prior to the rise of Islam, these three goddesses were associated with Allah as his daughters and all were worshiped at Mecca and other places in the vicinity.

The word "Allah" in Arabic simply means "The Deity", and Allat is just a feminised form of it. Although the pre-Islamic Arabs did worship Allah (The Deity) along with all their other pantheons, they recognised that Allah was the one all powerful creator-deity.

Quote:

Gaybriel, in case you think he is making it up, I have seen similar claims before and I suspect Abu agrees with them. There is also apparently another part of the Koran which was destroyed a few centuries after Muhammed because the clerics (ie the ones that don't exist) found it too disturbing.

I agree with this nonsense? Not bloody likely.

It's all a load of bollocks, there's absolutely no evidence at all that supposed verse was ever part of the Qur'an, it's nothing more than a fantasy of Rushdie and his supporters.

There was another part of the Qur'an? Interesting, do tell...

Try to keep it historical none of this nonsense about it being destoryed and we only know about it by some obscure writings, or it was found in a building in Yemen, and only 2 German scholars are allowed to view it. Please something realistic.

locutius wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 12:28pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 8th, 2008 at 2:58pm: Read it and tell us... Surely one of the millions of Muslims that read it, before enthusiastically anticipating his murder, might be able to tell us. They are very sharp afterall.

Why don't you tell us, even though you haven't read it, this hasn't stopped you before. Seems that people have a habit here of commenting on books they've never read.

Then again, you can always get jihadwatch.com to tell you. Or you can get Yada to tell you, cause he always posts accurate information about muslims. ::)

And after all, he posts what you want to hear. God forbid you'd actually listen to what muslims says....nah, we're all liars, aren't we locuitus.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 7:11pm:

tallowood, Quote: As the moon and the evening star are associated in the heavens, so too were Allat and al-`Uzza together in religious belief, and so too are the crescent and star conjoined on the flags of Arab countries today. Actually crescent and star are Turkish symbols, and appear on the flag of Turkey and a few other nations, mostly non-Arabic ones. In fact only two Arabic countries have the Crescent and star in their flags as you can see in this map of flags of the Arabic world: http://www.library.ex.ac.uk/awdu/images/ArabWorld.jpg They are the North African nations of Tunisia and Algeria. And this is probably because of their close ties with the Ottomans in later times. [quote]Prior to the rise of Islam, these three goddesses were associated with Allah as his daughters and all were worshiped at Mecca and other places in the vicinity.

The word "Allah" in Arabic simply means "The Deity", and Allat is just a feminised form of it. Although the pre-Islamic Arabs did worship Allah (The Deity) along with all their other pantheons, they recognised that Allah was the one all powerful creator-deity.[/quote]

I'm sure you are correct about modern flags but the book that quote came from was published in 1952(?), which means that the research was done even earlier but as I said I agree anyway.

As far as Allah and Allat are concerned it is reminiscent of the Archaic period in history of ancient Greece when religious deities of matriarchal society were giving way to patriarchate ideology. The same thing actually was happening earlier in Mesopotamia and in this way Mohamed is very similar to Abraham that he preached his god as The God.

Also, what do you make out of custom of "stoning the devil"?
I've read that Arabs had a custom of pilgrimage to Mecca and going three times around Kaaba way back in time. I think it is related to the three goddesses more then to Abraham's "pelting".

tallowood wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 5:53pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:45pm: freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 4:31pm: Gaybriel, in case you think he is making it up, I have seen similar claims before and I suspect Abu agrees with them. There is also apparently another part of the Koran which was destroyed a few centuries after Muhammed because the clerics (ie the ones that don't exist) found it too disturbing. I don't think he's making it up- I just want to see the original reference so I can check it out myself :) I gave original references. Did you check them?

sorry tallo- I missed those. I'll check it out

Quote:

The same thing actually was happening earlier in Mesopotamia and in this way Mohamed is very similar to Abraham that he preached his god as The God.

Actually, I mean the word itself is actually a contraction of the Arabic terms "Al" (the) and ilah (Deity) to make the word "Allah", not just that Muhammad (pbuh) 'preached' it.


Quote:

Also, what do you make out of custom of "stoning the devil"? I've read that Arabs had a custom of pilgrimage to Mecca and going three times around Kaaba way back in time. I think it is related to the three goddesses more then to Abraham's "pelting".

Although I believe Islam to be based on the exact same religion Abraham (pbuh) followed, my prophet is Muhammad (pbuh), he said to stone the devil, I stone the devil. I don't check back if it conforms with the time of Abraham (pbuh) before deciding whether to do it or not.

We believe pilgrimage to the Ka'abah though is related back to his time, the pagan Arabs simply instituted their own innovations into it over time as they degenerated into polytheism.

Lestat wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 7:54pm:

locutius wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 12:28pm: abu_rashid wrote on Nov 8th, 2008 at 2:58pm: Read it and tell us... Surely one of the millions of Muslims that read it, before enthusiastically anticipating his murder, might be able to tell us. They are very sharp afterall. Why don't you tell us, even though you haven't read it, this hasn't stopped you before. Seems that people have a habit here of commenting on books they've never read. Then again, you can always get jihadwatch.com to tell you. Or you can get Yada to tell you, cause he always posts accurate information about muslims. ::) And after all, he posts what you want to hear. God forbid you'd actually listen to what muslims says....nah, we're all liars, aren't we locuitus.

You're hilarious Lestat.

No I haven't read it but someone asked if a Muslim might want to comment. Abu decided that the original poster might want to do that themselves, but the original poster is not Muslim so ASKED for a Muslim's take on it.

I suggested that since so many of your kind hearted bretheren are prepared to murder people/artists over books (& cartoons, criticism etc) that being sharp and under instruction to educate themselves that they may have read it themselves. Doesn't seem unreasonalble to me as I'm not the one who bounces up and down slapping their forehead till it bleeds and displaying happiness to kill someone over something I have not even read.

Of course murdering an artist whether they have caused offence or not is something that your reply specifically avoided. Was it wrong? Do you agree with it?

It is a religion that really needs to grow up and drop the tantrums. I would suggest to you that this type of judgement (murdering artists) and its enthusiastic reception (by Muslims) does more to demonstrate to reasonable people just how dangerous total submission to religious dogma is than blowing up a bus. Some people MAY actually accept the blowing up of a bus as a military action, but that won't wash for murdering artists because they offended your prophet.

As to the website you referred to, well to the best of my knowledge you did not accept my invitation to provide me with websites that show a more balanced view. I am still waiting. I did check back on that topic for probably a week or more to see if you had delivered on the invitation........ Nothing.

As to being liars, you are decievers by admission. Remember the topic and discussions on Muslim Ettiquite. Give me something else to work with here.

Abu said

Quote:

It's all a load of bollocks, there's absolutely no evidence at all that supposed verse was ever part of the Qur'an, it's nothing more than a fantasy of Rushdie and his supporters.

Very probably true. Fantasy! A novel. A work of fiction. Will probably recieve no lasting critical acclaim but fame beyond its worth. The Streisand effect I think it is called. But worthy of a death sentence?

Quote:

but someone asked if a Muslim might want to comment

Actually he asked: "What is the book about, and why did Muslims get so upset about it?"

Reading it himself would answer the both parts of his question I think.


Quote:

As to being liars, you are decievers by admittion. Remember the topic and discussions on Muslim Ettiquite. Give me something else to work with here.

That topic didn't mention anything about Muslims being liars by admission (I assume this is what you mean by 'admittion'?), or perhaps you meant omission? Since your language skills seem to be a little lacking, it's kind of hard to determine exactly what it is you're trying to assert...


Quote:

Very probably true. Fantasy! A novel. A work of fiction. Will probably recieve no lasting critical acclaim but fame beyond its worth. But worthy of a death sentence?

According to most critics it was indeed a load of bollocks, and only received the acclaim it did because of its publicity.

The death sentence was from Iran, since neither Lestat nor myself are Shi'a, it's quite pointless to ask us to answer for their decree.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 9:06am:

Quote: but someone asked if a Muslim might want to comment Actually he asked: "What is the book about, and why did Muslims get so upset about it?" Reading it himself would answer the both parts of his question I think.

Maybe, maybe not. I suspect he wanted a Muslim take on it hence " why did Muslims get so upset about it? I am facinated that you don't have an opinion about it or that it has been a subject of discussion. As a convert wouldn't such incidences been of interest or importance in your decision making.


Quote:

As to being liars, you are decievers by admittion. Remember the topic and discussions on Muslim Ettiquite. Give me something else to work with here.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 9:06am:

That topic didn't mention anything about Muslims being liars by admission (I assume this is what you mean by 'admittion'?), or perhaps you meant omission? Since your language skills seem to be a little lacking, it's kind of hard to determine exactly what it is you're trying to assert...

Thank you for correcting me on my spelling, I have amended the offending mistake. I can't guarantee that there won't be others as being slightly dislexic I am by admission quite poor at spelling. I will try to make the extra effort to cut/paste/spellcheck where time allows. I will try to communicate better in the future.

You admitted the existence of Muslim Ettiquite that censors criticism of fellow Muslims. Also thank you for suggesting the word omission. It is a good word, like the word deciever. These words go hand in hand, thats why I did not come out and use the word liar. Both you and Lestat used that word. We can take this particular discussion back to the Muslim Ettiquite topic anyway if you wish.


abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 9:06am:

Quote: Very probably true. Fantasy! A novel. A work of fiction. Will probably recieve no lasting critical acclaim but fame beyond its worth. But worthy of a death sentence? According to most critics it was indeed a load of bollocks, and only received the acclaim it did because of its publicity.

Basically what I said above. I don't know if it is pure bollocks. But I accept that it probably is.


abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 9:06am:

The death sentence was from Iran, since neither Lestat nor myself are Shi'a, it's quite pointless to ask us to answer for their decree.

Quite right, but I did not ask for you to answer for their decree, I asked for you to comment on it. Like the original poster was asking. You're not American either but you often have plenty to say about America.

Lestat wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 7:54pm:

.......Or you can get Yada to tell you, cause he always posts accurate information about muslims. ::) And after all, he posts what you want to hear. God forbid you'd actually listen to what muslims says....nah, we're all liars, aren't we.......

Lestat,

Are you suggesting that the examples of violent muslim behaviour which i present here, are not valid?

I have heard it said that in such examples, these ppl are not real muslims.
.....[muslim impersonators????]
.....[i am still trying to find real muslims, to study their behaviour. but I think they must have gone extinct.]




Lestat,

Which Koran and Hadith do you and abu follow?

Do you have a certain, peculiar, copy of the Koran and Hadith, which is unavailable to others?




And when i post Koran & Hadith quotes here, [from that version of the Koran and Hadith which i have access to], are you suggesting that the Koran & Hadith verses which i give are somehow incorrect???

Can you please direct me [with a link] to the correct Koran and Hadith???



Or is it just that [i have the correct Koran and Hadith, but that] i am somehow misrepresenting those Koran & Hadith verses, which i present on this forum???

Hmmmmm???




Hadith....

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.196


"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.025






Lestat, here is one of my favourite Koran verses....

Isn't it a beauty!!!

ALLAH'S DUPES.....

"Satan makes them promises, and creates in them false desires; but satan's promises are nothing but deception.
They (his dupes) will have their dwelling in Hell, and from it they will find no way of escape."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.120

Thanks Yadda,

This was a point that I forgot to make about your quotes coming from the Koran and Hadith. If the quotes are correct then there is disagreement over interpretation. Then that needs to be the point of discussion. Because it is a public forum there is an implied invitation to respond and add another interpretation. Of course if the spirit of what is meant is the reverse of what is said then a combination of patience and another layer of information is probably required.

I have seen defences that say that you can't understand it unless you learn Arabic ? and then other times it is stated that it is not required. Which is it? I would suggest that a text that cannot adequately be transcribed from one existing language to another is deliberately vague, and far from a comprehensive and absolute guide to here and the hereafter. And I'm accussed of communication problems.  ::) Good grief.

Is your reference site a University website?

locutius wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 12:37pm:

Thanks Yadda, This was a point that I forgot to make about your quotes coming from the Koran and Hadith. If the quotes are correct then there is disagreement over interpretation. Then that needs to be the point of discussion. Because it is a public forum there is an implied invitation to respond and add another interpretation. Of course if the spirit of what is meant is the reverse of what is said then a combination of patience and another layer of information is probably required. I have seen defences that say that you can't understand it unless you learn Arabic ? and then other times it is stated that it is not required. Which is it? I would suggest that a text that cannot adequately be transcribed from one existing language to another is deliberately vague, and far from a comprehensive and absolute guide to here and the hereafter. And I'm accussed of communication problems.  ::) Good grief. Is your reference site a University website?

locutius,

University of Southern California hosts the ISLAMIC texts [including the Koran & Hadith], which i use as a source.

The site is a host for these texts, for the MSA [Muslim Students Assoc. of USA].



Your suggestion that ISLAMISTS suggest, we cannot understand the true meaning of the Koran, because it was / is written in Arabic, is a furphy.

If that argument was valid, no-one would be able to understand the message of the New Testament unless they learned Greek, and would be unable to understand the Old Testament scriptures, unless they learned Hebrew.

While some particular details may be in dispute, due to translation from the original language, the thrust of the words within those particular scriptures remain clear.





Of course, a similar translation of the Koran, and other ISLAMIC texts to other languages, are a special case.

Of course, ISLAMIC texts can never be clearly converted / translated, to other languages, because Arabic is indecipherable / incomprehensible, to anyone translating it to another language.
/sarc off

Poppycock!

i would be hesitant to believe that there were once female goddesses in the koran.

whether or not one believes the Mohammad was genuine you cannot believe he was completely stupid and would write something so obvious...

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 7:39pm:

i would be hesitant to believe that there were once female goddesses in the koran. whether or not one believes the Mohammad was genuine you cannot believe he was completely stupid and would write something so obvious...

They are still there.

Quote:

Near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!) (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat? These are the exalted cranes whose intercession is to be hoped for. What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!

an-Najm 53:19-22
The only highlighted verses were deleted.

Also here is extracts from one of the great Muslim historians Al-Tabari.

History of al-Tabari Vol. 6, The Muhammad at Mecca


Quote:

The Messenger of God was eager for the welfare of his people and Muhammad at Mecca wished to effect a reconciliation with them in whatever ways he could. It is said that he wanted to find a way to do this, and what happened was as follows. (this is cited from the early sources Ibn Humayd—Salamah--Muhammad b. Ishaq—Yazid b. Ziyad al-Madani—Muhammad b. Kali al-Qurazi) When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed: By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is    he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire .. . and when he came to the words:    Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-'Uzza and Manat, the third, the other? Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:    These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. When Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they lis?tened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their Prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their Prophet, trust?ing in the message which he had brought and following his example. Those polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the Mosque likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself. The one exception was al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, who was a very old man and could not prostrate himself; but he took a handful of soil from the valley in his hand and bowed over that. Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods which they had heard, saying, "Muhammad has mentioned our gods in the most favorable way possible, stat?ing in his recitation that they are the high-flying cranes and that their intercession is received with approval." The news of this prostration reached those of the Messenger of God's Companions who were in Abyssinia and people said, "The Quraysh have accepted Islam." Some rose up to return, while others remained behind. Then Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, "Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you." Then the Messenger of God was much grieved and feared God greatly, but God sent down a revelation to him, for He was merciful to him, consoling him and making the matter light for him, informing him that there had never been a prophet or a messenger before him who de sired as he desired and wished as he wished but that Satan had cast words into his recitation, as he had cast words on Muhammad's tongue. Then God cancelled what Satan had thus cast, and established his verses by telling him that he was like other prophets and messengers, and revealed:    Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you but that when he recited (the Message) Satan cast words into his recitation ( umniyyah ).God abrogates what Satan casts. Then God established his verses. God is knower, wise. Thus God removed the sorrow from his Messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high-flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of "al-Lat, al-'Uzza and Manat, the third, the other," the words:    Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers ... to the words:    to whom he wills and accepts. This means, how can the intercession of their gods avail with God? When Muhammad brought a revelation from God cancelling what Satan had cast on the tongue of His Prophet, the Quraysh said, "Muhammad has repented of what he said concerning the position of your gods with God, and has altered it and brought something else." Those two phrases which Satan had cast on the tongue of the Messenger of God were in the mouth of every polytheists, and they became even more ill-disposed and more violent in their persecution of those of them who had accepted Islam and followed the Messenger of God.

I started to read the Rushdi's SV second time now and found it more entertaining then first time because of the research I've done and probably because I'm getting used to Arabic and Indian names.

I reckon that Ayatollah Khomeini took personal offence to it because the book's personage "Imam"  looks bad and he looks like Khomeini. I think that is the real reason for his fatwa. Well, you don't mess with a psychopath even old one.


Quote:

This, for instance, has started coming: a mansion block built in the Dutch style in a part of London which he will subsequently identify as Kensington, to which the dream flies him at high speed past Barkers department store and the small grey house with double bay windows where Thackeray wrote _Vanity Fair_ and the square with the convent where the little girls in uniform are always going in, but never come out, and the house where Talleyrand lived in his old age when after a thousand and one chameleon changes of allegiance and principle he took on the outward form of the French ambassador to London, and arrives at a seven--storey corner block with green wrought--iron balconies up to the fourth, and now the dream rushes him up the outer wall of the house and on the fourth floor it pushes aside the heavy curtains at the living-room window and finally there he sits, unsleeping as usual, eyes wide in the dim yellow light, staring into the future, the bearded and turbaned Imam. Who is he? An exile. Which must not be confused with, allowed to run into, all the other words that people throw around: émigré, expatriate, refugee, immigrant, silence, cunning. Exile is a dream of glorious return. Exile is a vision of revolution: Elba, not St Helena. It is an endless paradox: looking forward by always looking back. The exile is a ball hurled high into the air. He hangs there, frozen in time, translated into a photograph; denied motion, suspended impossibly above his native earth, he awaits the inevitable moment at which the photograph must begin to move, and the earth reclaim its own. These are the things the Imam thinks. His home is a rented flat. It is a waiting-- room, a photograph, air. The thick wallpaper, olive stripes on a cream ground, has faded a little, enough to emphasize the brighter rectangles and ovals that indicate where pictures used to hang. The Imam is the enemy of images. When he moved in the pictures slid noiselessly from the walls and slunk from the room, removing themselves from the rage of his unspoken disapproval. Some representations, however, are permitted to remain. On the mantelpiece he keeps a small group of postcards bearing conventional images of his homeland, which he calls simply Desh: a mountain looming over a city; a picturesque village scene beneath a mighty tree; a mosque. But in his bedroom, on the wall facing the hard cot where he lies, there hangs a more potent icon, the portrait of a woman of exceptional force, famous for her profile of a Grecian statue and the black hair that is as long as she is high. A powerful woman, his enemy, his other: he keeps her close. Just as, far away in the palaces of her omnipotence she will be clutching his portrait beneath her royal cloak or hiding it in a locket at her throat. She is the Empress, and her name is -- what else? -- Ayesha. On this island, the exiled Imam, and at home in Desh, She. They plot each other's deaths.

Quote:

I have seen defences that say that you can't understand it unless you learn Arabic ?

Where have you seen this defence?

Arabic is not required to read the Islamic texts, as Yadda pointed out, neither is Greek or Hebrew required to read the Bible. However, it is required if one wants to become an Islamic scholar, and to make rulings based on Islamic texts.

tallowood,


Quote:

Also here is extracts from one of the great Muslim historians Al-Tabari. History of al-Tabari Vol. 6, The Muhammad at Mecca

at-Tabari's history is a history book, not an Islamic source text. It contains known true facts about history, and it contains fabrications and possibly all manner of half truths in between. This one has been proven to be a clear fabrication for a few good reasons.

1) The pagan Makkans offered Muhammad (pbuh) kingship, wealth and his choice of Makkan women, if he'd just compromise his message for them. He flatly refused by saying "Even if you put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left, I would not give up this message, until God makes it victorious or I die in it's cause". Why would he reject those things, yet he'd compromise just for people to bow with him? Doesn't sound very logical

2) The verses that supposedly abrogate this verse, and expunge it from the Qur'an weren't revealed until many years later (about 8 years in fact), so that would mean the "Satanic verses" would've stayed in effect for 8 years, if they actually existed. And that 8 years saw the most brutal persecution against the Muslims.

3) Not a single hadith mentions this incident. Hadith are the only reliable historical sources we have of that time period, because of their massive amounts of corroborating narration chains from so many vastly different regions of the early Islamic empire.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 5:21am:

Quote: I have seen defences that say that you can't understand it unless you learn Arabic ? Where have you seen this defence? Arabic is not required to read the Islamic texts, as Yadda pointed out, neither is Greek or Hebrew required to read the Bible. However, it is required if one wants to become an Islamic scholar, and to make rulings based on Islamic texts.

It may take me a while to find this reference, it may not have been this forum but I am pretty sure it was (as well as others). When I find it I will post it back here or start a new discussion maybe.

I did afterall say "understand" rather than just read. I'm sure that if I were to give you an interpretation that conflicts with your Iman's interpretation you are going to tell me that I have not understood it. I've read the Upanishads but parts of that were meaningless to me as other parts were clear.

It poses an interesting question about the word of God, that it CAN be interpreted in different ways. That a scholar is required? The idea that truths are revealed (round earth) to prove it is a divine text etc. Here's a hint for God, jehovah, Allah, Vishnu etc etc how about making the texts self revealing and uncorruptably linear in their meaning. If someone tries to alter the text, it changes itself back. Again, I will start a topic concerning this idea. Back to the Satanic Verses.

There has still been no comment about Muslim perception of this book, nor what is felt about the extended question of murdering artists.

Lestat wrote :And after all, he posts what you want to hear. God forbid you'd actually listen to what muslims says....nah, we're all liars, aren't we locuitus. I listen very closely to what Muslim's say. I listen closely to what anyone says, with the possible exception of sport commentators. So far the Muslim's have said almost nothing relavent to the question. Not in the way that I'm sure FD was hoping.

There was a small distraction about stars and moons on flags and I was half expecting Hogworts to enter into the conversation.

Is it acceptable for anyone to murder artists?

locutius,

As I said already, it's a decree of the government of Iran, take it up with the Shi'a, since they made the ruling, and presumably believe it to be binding on *them*. Nothing to do with the rest of us (95%) Muslims.

Do you support the murdering of bricklayers?? What kind of nonsensical questioning are you engaging in.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 10:54am:

locutius, As I said already, it's a decree of the government of Iran, take it up with the Shi'a, since they made the ruling, and presumably believe it to be binding on *them*. Nothing to do with the rest of us (95%) Muslims. Do you support the murdering of bricklayers?? What kind of nonsensical questioning are you engaging in.

But you see I can easily answer the question? No it is not acceptable to murder bricklayers or artists. You have not been asked to do anything but answer a simple question. If you don't want to answer it then just say so. Like I said, your not American but you have plenty to say about the U.S.A.

What sort of nonsensical avoidance game are you playing? Omission and Deception?

I just don't consider your question aimed at me as valid, in fact I consider it quite offensive, therefore I choose not to answer it.

You can make what you like of it, omission, deception, even an admission of guilt if you like, knock yourself out.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 11:19am:

I just don't consider your question aimed at me as valid, in fact I consider it quite offensive, therefore I choose not to answer it. You can make what you like of it, omission, deception, even an admission of guilt if you like, knock yourself out.

Why is it not valid? The question is offensive. How so? What constitutes a valid question? We may as well come to an understanding on this now for both our benefit and for the forum.

What would I be holding you guilty for? That had not crossed my mind. Omissive and deceptive sure.

Is the reluctance because you would have to criticise fellow Muslims? Is this going to be like pleading the 5th amendment. Funny, I never understood pleading the 5th during the McCarthy Era, I would have plead the 1st. The right to believe what I want. Does dogma demand that Muslim's don't have that luxury and ettiquite demand they not speak their mind freely?

Can you answer these questions maybe without offering a position relavent to the offensive question.

Quote:

Why would he reject those things, yet he'd compromise just for people to bow with him? Doesn't sound very logical

Apparently the devil made him do it. So it is not supposed to be logical.


Quote:

Do you support the murdering of bricklayers?? What kind of nonsensical questioning are you engaging in.

Perhaps you should just answer it then Abu. Islam forbids blasphemy, and as far as I can tell you haven't said what the punishment for blasphemy is.


Quote:

I just don't consider your question aimed at me as valid, in fact I consider it quite offensive, therefore I choose not to answer it.

I have added this as an example of hypersensitivity.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Hypersensitivity

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 9:46am:

tallowood, Quote: Also here is extracts from one of the great Muslim historians Al-Tabari. History of al-Tabari Vol. 6, The Muhammad at Mecca at-Tabari's history is a history book, not an Islamic source text. It contains known true facts about history, and it contains fabrications and possibly all manner of half truths in between. This one has been proven to be a clear fabrication for a few good reasons. 1) The pagan Makkans offered Muhammad (pbuh) kingship, wealth and his choice of Makkan women, if he'd just compromise his message for them. He flatly refused by saying "Even if you put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left, I would not give up this message, until God makes it victorious or I die in it's cause". Why would he reject those things, yet he'd compromise just for people to bow with him? Doesn't sound very logical 2) The verses that supposedly abrogate this verse, and expunge it from the Qur'an weren't revealed until many years later (about 8 years in fact), so that would mean the "Satanic verses" would've stayed in effect for 8 years, if they actually existed. And that 8 years saw the most brutal persecution against the Muslims. 3) Not a single hadith mentions this incident. Hadith are the only reliable historical sources we have of that time period, because of their massive amounts of corroborating narration chains from so many vastly different regions of the early Islamic empire.

History books are not less trustworthy then any other propaganda. besides neither Al-Tabari no Ibn Ishaq who told the same story were ever subjected to a fatwa for defamation by their contemporaries.

1 Mohamed's intention was not "for people to bow with him" but to save his own life and lives of his followers.

2 In 8 years the balance of power had shifted radically away from once-powerful Mecca toward Muhammad and the Muslims.

3 It is very strange that not a single hadith mentions Gharaniq incident including refutal while the story were repeated again and again. The reference and exegesis about the Verses appear in early histories. In addition to appearing in Tabarī's Tafsīr, it is used in the tafsīrs of Muqātil, ‘Abdu r-Razzāq and Ibn Kathir as well as the naskh of Abu Ja‘far an-Nahhās, the asbāb collection of Wāhidī and even the late-medieval as-Suyūtī's compilation al-Durr al-Manthūr fil-Tafsīr bil-Mathūr.

Very likely that hadith silence on the matter was due to religious politics of the time because temporary control taken by Satan over Muhammad made such traditions unacceptable to the compilers.
This is a unique case in which a group of traditions are rejected only after being subject to Koranic models, and as a direct result of this adjustment.

freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 1:03pm:

What is the book about, and why did Muslims get so upset about it?

Basically, parts of the story line where based on certain hadiths (traditions of the Prophet) that at one point, Muhammad (pbuh) was tempted by the Devil to add verses to the Qur'an allowing worship of multiple deities in order to appease the pagans of Makkah, but that these verses were later taken out after Gabriel corrected him. These hadith though were related by a narrator who was known to be a liar and fabricator of hadith, and so they are not accepted. Certain biographies of Islam do include them, only as that they include everything true and false, real or legend, which was relayed about the Prophet of Islam.

If you go to youtube, look up the user Ozzycda, he has some very informative videos on this and other topics.

The problem which Muslims have with Rushdie's work is that it perpetuates this false hadith/story that the Devil was able to tamper with the Qur'an.

The book was also banned in South Africa due to the pornographic and racist themes of some of its content. At one point a black character in the book who... eats... s-h-i-t, is made by Rushdie to say that white man's s-h-i-t (okay, yes I realize it's a bit juvenile to spell out curse words, but I really don't like to use them), tastes better than N-word s-h-i-t. Also certain figures in Great Britain, such as Marguerite Thatcher and the Queen of England are called names like whores and such.

Many Muslims who protested did not read the book, and just followed others' claims that it was blasphemous. Also, there are some things to be said about Imam Khomeini's motives in declaring such a fatwa over someone who is not even a citizen of his country, but Allahu a3lam (God knows) whatever those intentions were.

I have to admit, I too haven't read the entirety of the Satanic Verses. I tried to, but I just found it a very tiresome work to get involved in as a reader. I did read another work of his, Midnight's Children, which I did enjoy a lot. I actually have autographed copies of most of his works, including the Satanic Verses... I just don't have his newer works like the Moor's Last Sigh or that other book... I think it had the word Clown in the title, but the rest of the title is escaping my mind right now...

But, to conclude, Muslims felt insulted by many of the themes this book contained, and it and the cartoon protests are better understood as bursting points. Muslims are frustrated by many things in this world. They're frustrated by what seems to be an unending attack of their countries by more powerful nations, frustrated by what appears to them a robbery of the land and livelihoods of their brothers and sisters in Palestine/Israel, frustrated by what seems to be an attack on their culture, religion, and moral values. To many, all of the wars and invasions in Muslim lands today, seem to be a continuation of the attack against Islam and attempted suppression of Islamic values and cultures as was seen during the colonial era. Irreverent cartoons and books are just the needle that broke the camel's back, so to speak, and provide physical symbols to rally against. It's hard to rally and protest against something as immaterial as a country's foreign policy, but books and cartoons make good physical effigies to put before and stir up a crowd. All the frustration and anger let loose during the protests had been built up over decades of feeling wronged by the world at large.

That being said, I do not agree with such violent and aggressive protests, that end up at times killing some of those participating in them. When asked for advice once, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said three times (to emphasize) what is translated to English as "Do not get angry." If a Muslim gets angry, he/she should sit down. If he/she is still angry than he/she should lie down. If he/she is still angry, then he/she should perform wudu - the washing ritual made before prayers, to cool down. There is a lot of emphasis in Islam on patience and forbearance, just as there is in Christianity and Judaism. Once the prophet (pbuh) was sitting with one of his companions. People started to mock his companion, but that companion (it was either Abu Bakr or Omar... I almost always get them mixed up) stayed silent and patient with what the people were saying against him. Then the people said something against Muhammad (pbuh) who was with him. At that instant, the companion turned furious and got up to fight the people for what they were saying against the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). At that moment though, when the companion got angry and stood up to fight, the Prophet (pbuh) left. Abu Bakr/Omar (sorry, the confusion between them is my own), followed after instead of fighting and asked the Prophet (pbuh) why he left. The Prophet (pbuh) said "Oh Omar/Abu Bakr (I think it was probably Omar... Omar tended to have a bit of a hot-temper) as long as you were staying patient and keeping your silence there were angels praising you, but the instant you got mad, the angels left, and I do not stay in places where there are no angels." I think this is very good advice that all Muslims, and people in general should remember, not to let themselves fall into anger and irrational actions.

Thank you very much for reading, and anything I said of the truth comes from God, and anything I said that was incorrect comes from my own human fallibility.

Peace! :)

Thanks Emily, for taking the time to explain things in easy to understand terms and without arrogance.

jordan484 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 6:34am:

Thanks Emily, for taking the time to explain things in easy to understand terms and without arrogance.

No problem. Always happy to help clarify things where I can.

Another thing to remember is that when people feel they are being attacked, the fight or flight mechanism can kick in. To the cries of, If you don't like it here, go back to your own country, many people can't. Some, like me, were born in the West, and have our lives and families here (although, funnily enough, I am planning a move to Yemen in May, insha'Allah - God willing, so I should say to such people, just wait and give me a few months and I'll be out of your hair insha'Allah). Others really can't return to their own countries. I have Palistinian friends and Bosnian friends who simply can't go back to their own countries where they were born for fear of violence and persecution. So without the flight option, there's only the fight option left in that mechanism. And that's what many people do resort to.

Surah (chapter) 103 of the Qur'an entitled Al 'Asr (the time) says:

1. By the time. [here Allah is swearing by the immensity of time]
2. Verily! Man is in loss,
3. Except those who believe and do righteous good deeds, and recommend one another to the truth, and recommend one another to patience.

*bracketed items are added to explain features of the Arabic style which are not as translatable into English or not understood as well in the translation*


So, although there is this fight or flight response, mankind (al Insan in Arabic) should believe in the One God, and perform good deeds, and recommend one another to performing good deeds and to patience.

God is with those who are patient. :)

And again, anything I say of the truth comes from God, and anything I say that is wrong is on account of my own limitations.

Peace! :)

Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 6:12am:

... Basically, parts of the story line where based on certain hadiths (traditions of the Prophet) that at one point, Muhammad (pbuh) was tempted by the Devil to add verses to the Qur'an allowing worship of multiple deities in order to appease the pagans of Makkah, but that these verses were later taken out after Gabriel corrected him. These hadith though were related by a narrator who was known to be a liar and fabricator of hadith, and so they are not accepted. Certain biographies of Islam do include them, only as that they include everything true and false, real or legend, which was relayed about the Prophet of Islam. ... Thank you very much for reading, and anything I said of the truth comes from God, and anything I said that was incorrect comes from my own human fallibility.

What is the name of that narrator, not Shaitan by a chance? Also who decided what was truth and what was lie? Which rules did they use to determine that? Your own disclaimer at the end of the post suggests human fallibility, which in turn suggests fallibility of human decides and even Mohammed himself unless He was not human.

tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 9:01am:

What is the name of that narrator, not Shaitan by a chance? Also who decided what was truth and what was lie? Which rules did they use to determine that? Your own disclaimer at the end of the post suggests human fallibility, which in turn suggests fallibility of human decides and even Mohammed himself unless He was not human.

Thank you for your response, but I'm kinda new here, and I'm trying to be polite and respectful, so I would appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy. Maybe I'm reading too much into your response, but it seemed very aggressive and accusative.

As for your question, while the term shaitan can be applied to any rebellious entity, be it human, jinn, or <i>The Shaitan</i> formerly named Iblis, the name of the specific narrator of this Hadith was al-Waqidi. For your questions about who determined what was true and what was not, specifically in the case of the reliability of al-Waqidi as a transmitter and his transmissions as believable or not, please see this website: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html They go into much more detail than I could manage in these 5500 character posts.

As for your last question, of course Muhammad (pbuh) was 100% human, just as Jesus Christ (pbuh) was 100% human, but as a theist, and specifically, as an Islamic theist, I believe that God protects His prophets (peace be upon all of them) from bringing false messages to their people. As for me, I am not a prophet, so I can't trust that what I say is free from error.

Again, this is just my view coming from a theist background. You're welcome to disagree, but please try to limit the passive-aggressiveness.

Whatever I say correctly comes from God, whatever mistakes I make are my own, and please forgive me for that.

Peace!

Hmm... I think I used the phrase "as for" way too many times...

Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 9:29am:

... As for your last question, of course Muhammad (pbuh) was 100% human, just as Jesus Christ (pbuh) was 100% human, but as a theist, and specifically, as an Islamic theist, I believe that God protects His prophets (peace be upon all of them) from bringing false messages to their people. As for me, I am not a prophet, so I can't trust that what I say is free from error. ...

Sorry but i did not understand the bit about aggressiveness.
Thanks for the link.
As for protection of prophets by God ..... there are two things about it:

1 According to the Gharaniq incident God sent Gabriel to inform Mohamed about Satan's interference and later comforted him:

Quote:

Thus God removed the sorrow from his Messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high-flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of "al-Lat, al-'Uzza and Manat, the third, the other," the words: Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers ... to the words: to whom he wills and accepts.

The above does not contradict the notion of protection of prophets by God


2 The people who were making decisions about truthfulness or otherwise of a hadith were not prophets therefore they were not entitle to the divine protection therefore as mere humans potentially they were as fallible as al-Waqidi.

tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:12am:

Sorry but i did not understand the bit about aggressiveness.

"What is the name of that narrator, not Shaitan by a chance?"

That was what seemed a little aggressive to me. But again, like I said, I might have just been reading more into it than was there.

You're right that the hadith would not violate the notion of God protecting His revelation from errors, since according to the hadith, He sent Gabriel to correct it.

However, what would violate the Prophet's (pbuh) mission is that he himself would ever accept other deities as okay intercessors after saying la ilaha (no gods) illa (except) Allah (The God). So, the hadith's relation that he accepted worship of other deities contradicts his Shahadah or testimony of faith that there is no other god worthy of worship except God.



tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:12am:

2 The people who were making decisions about truthfulness or otherwise of a hadith were not prophets therefore they were not entitle to the divine protection therefore as mere humans potentially they were as fallible as al-Waqidi.

Yes, the people were making decisions about the veracity of the ahadith (plural of hadith) were not prophets and were prone to error. However, they used a scientific method of hadith authentication and reasoning. How Al-Waqidi was determined to be unreliable is discussed in the site link I gave in the previous post, along with arguments for why the story itself is unacceptable given considerations in details of its telling and supposed time of occurence.

What is this 'scientific method'?

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 11:14am:

What is this 'scientific method'?

Now there's a whole PhD of a subject right there.

Well, here is something you might find interesting to read...

http://www.quran.org/library/articles/ahmad0.htm

I'm sorry I can't give you a more concise explanation of the method of hadith authentication and its application in Islam.  I hope that this article gives you some idea of the complexity of this subject, though.

Here's what one person (http://looklex.com/contact/p_tore.htm) had to say about the method of the collection and authentication of the ahadith:

"When early Muslim scholars collected the siras, they used two methods. The first method weighed authenticity by testing the chain of the story's transmitters, isnad. Scholars would analyze how far back in time it was possible to trace the transmission, and whether the transmitters were reported to be honest people, etc. The other method compared stories, and the more a group of stories related to one another, the more reliable they were considered to be.

This scholarship resulted in 6 collections, or hadiths. Of these, the one assembled by the scholar Bukhari is considered to be the most scientifically accurate. Muslim's hadith is considered to be almost as good as Bukhari's. The other 4 also have high value, but most people reading the hadiths seldom venture beyond Bukhari and al-Muslim. The 4 are the following; Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud and an-Nisai.

According to the tradition, Bukhari had 7275 traditions validated out of a material of 600,000. Muslim collected 9,200 out of a total 300,000. Among of the high number of omitted traditions many were left out for being duplicates.

The value and accuracy of the hadiths should be regarded as fairly high, when judged by modern scholarship. The techniques used by these historians, resembles to a large extent that employed by cotemporary historians. Their achievement is so much the greater, however, because they had few historical models on which to rely. While several irregularities can be traced, little can be ascribed to lack of scientific honesty."

http://i-cias.com/e.o/hadith.htm

Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 11:03am:

... "What is the name of that narrator, not Shaitan by a chance?" That was what seemed a little aggressive to me. But again, like I said, I might have just been reading more into it than was there. You're right that the hadith would not violate the notion of God protecting His revelation from errors, since according to the hadith, He sent Gabriel to correct it. However, what would violate the Prophet's (pbuh) mission is that he himself would ever accept other deities as okay intercessors after saying la ilaha (no gods) illa (except) Allah (The God). So, the hadith's relation that he accepted worship of other deities contradicts his Shahadah or testimony of faith that there is no other god worthy of worship except God. tallowood wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 10:12am: 2 The people who were making decisions about truthfulness or otherwise of a hadith were not prophets therefore they were not entitle to the divine protection therefore as mere humans potentially they were as fallible as al-Waqidi. Yes, the people were making decisions about the veracity of the ahadith (plural of hadith) were not prophets and were prone to error. However, they used a scientific method of hadith authentication and reasoning. How Al-Waqidi was determined to be unreliable is discussed in the site link I gave in the previous post, along with arguments for why the story itself is unacceptable given considerations in details of its telling and supposed time of occurence.

Please see my post about SV and usage of Shaitan name as nickname for Gibreel by his mother on previous page.

I had a look at your link and did not see any scientific method there. To say "And Allah knows best!" as a proof of their hypothesis is NOT a scientific method but a Credo of their religious believes.

BTW, did you find them to be extremely aggressive using such words as "gross ignorance and sheer tomfoolery" about their opponents or is it acceptable to you?



Quote:

However, what would violate the Prophet's (pbuh) mission is that he himself would ever accept other deities as okay intercessors after saying la ilaha (no gods) illa (except) Allah (The God). So, the hadith's relation that he accepted worship of other deities contradicts his Shahadah or testimony of faith that there is no other god worthy of worship except God.

No it does not contradict his Shahadah. As he was a "100% human" it means that he was fallible while his divine protection as prophet we already discussed and yourself agreed that there is no contradiction there either.

Go tallow...  on fire  :)

Please see my post about SV and usage of Shaitan name as nickname for Gibreel by his mother on previous page.

>> A link would be helpful, because I'm not sure where to find that, and I wasn't aware that Gibreel had a mother.

I had a look at your link and did not see any scientific method there. To say "And Allah knows best!" as a proof of their hypothesis is NOT a scientific method but a Credo of their religious believes.

>> I only said you might find the link interesting to read, I didn't say I agreed with it 100%. Then again, I didn't say that I disagreed with it either, so it's my own fault for being silent on that. I was wondering if you saw anything scientific about the method for authenticating ahadith as described in the excerpt I posted from http://i-cias.com/e.o/hadith.htm .

>> Also, the reason why they would have said Allah knows best is to cover themselves for any mistakes they make, it's a basic disclaimer that they might have made mistakes in what they've written or hypothesized.

BTW, did you find them to be extremely aggressive using such words as "gross ignorance and sheer tomfoolery" about their opponents or is it acceptable to you?

>> Yes, I do find those to be aggressive, but I didn't write that article, and I never said I agree with it 100%, I only found it to be an interesting read.

Quote:

I was wondering if you saw anything scientific about the method for authenticating ahadith as described in the excerpt I posted

I don't see anything scientific in it, but then I tend to use science in the modern context, as distinct from the methods used to study history.

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 12:58pm:

I don't see anything scientific in it, but then I tend to use science in the modern context, as distinct from the methods used to study history.

Oh okay, sorry, now I see what happened. We crossed terms.

I was using scientific method in the form used to study history and verify historic events, and you were using it in the terms of modern science, and I misunderstood your question. Sorry.

Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Please see my post about SV and usage of Shaitan name as nickname for Gibreel by his mother on previous page. >> A link would be helpful, because I'm not sure where to find that, and I wasn't aware that Gibreel had a mother....

Sorry I've mislead you the Full Moon made me do that :-[ , it was in another thread. So now here it is where it rightfully belongs.


Quote:

Gibreel when he submits to the inevitable, when he slides heavy-lidded towards visions of his angeling, passes his loving mother who has a different name for him, Shaitan, she calls him, just like Shaitan, same to same, because he has been fooling around with the tiffins to be carried into the city for the office workers' lunch, mischeevious imp, she slices the air with her hand, rascal has been putting Muslim meat compartments into Hindu nonveg tiffin-carriers, customers are up in arms.

(c) SV by S. Rushdie (chapter 2, page 64)

tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:22pm:

Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 12:55pm: Please see my post about SV and usage of Shaitan name as nickname for Gibreel by his mother on previous page. >> A link would be helpful, because I'm not sure where to find that, and I wasn't aware that Gibreel had a mother.... Sorry I've mislead you the Full Moon made me do that, it was in another thread. So here it is now. Quote: Gibreel when he submits to the inevitable, when he slides heavy-lidded towards visions of his angeling, passes his loving mother who has a different name for him, Shaitan, she calls him, just like Shaitan, same to same, because he has been fooling around with the tiffins to be carried into the city for the office workers' lunch, mischeevious imp, she slices the air with her hand, rascal has been putting Muslim meat compartments into Hindu nonveg tiffin-carriers, customers are up in arms. (c) SV by S. Rushdie (chapter 2, page 64)

Okay... so Salman Rushdie used Shaitan as a nickname for Gibreel in his book The Satanic Verses... that's interesting, but I don't really understand why you brought it up. I'm not sure where Rushdie got the idea that Gibreel had a mother or that she liked to call him Shaitan. His book is classified by himself as fiction, so I'm just wondering if there is some Islamic source he's taking that idea from, or if that's something he has created himself to weave into his novel.

Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:35pm:

... Okay... so Salman Rushdie used Shaitan as a nickname for Gibreel in his book The Satanic Verses... that's interesting, but I don't really understand why you brought it up.

"a narrator who was known to be a liar and fabricator" -> The Deceiver -> Shaitan




Emily the Muslim wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:35pm:

. I'm not sure where Rushdie got the idea that Gibreel had a mother or that she liked to call him Shaitan. His book is classified by himself as fiction, so I'm just wondering if there is some Islamic source he's taking that idea from, or if that's something he has created himself to weave into his novel.

Of course Rushdie's SV is a fiction as books of literature are.

Rushdie's sources for the verse are Tabarī's Tafsīr, Muqātil, Abdu r-Razzāq, Ibn Kathir, Abu Ja‘far an-Nahhās, Wāhidī and Suyūtī.

His inspiration for character of Gibreel comes from Michail Bulgakov's great masterpiece "Master and Margarita".  "Woland (Satan in disguise) a 'foreign professor' who is in Moscow to present a performance of 'black magic' and then to expose its machinations. The exposure (as one could guess) never occurs, instead Woland exposes the greed and bourgeois behaviour of the spectators themselves". "He who is eternally Evil but is fated to do Good for ever."
In its own turn the character of "Woland" was inspired by "Mephistopheles" from medieval legends about Doctor Faust.

When I read SV first time few years ago I found it boring but since than the controversy of the book made me to do some research and now I really enjoying it. It is great example of intercultural transmission: from medieval Christian Europe to atheistic USSR of 1920s to modern Islamic culture of Indian subcontinent and back to modern Europe. Fantastic journey with a little help on the way from Evil Imam who was fated to do Good Work of popularising the Rushdie's book.

I think if we're going to be talking about the koran and scientific method etc- it might be helpful not to bring fictional works into play (unless they're referring to something believed to be factual)- otherwise, there are total cross purposes here.

But a work of fiction "The Satanic Verses" and how it was recieved by Muslims is the topic. What non-fiction inspired some of the story and what was made up is just where the discussion has most recently arrived.

We may get somewhere with this. Like FD and Emily have both agreed, Scientific method can't really apply except possibly in analysing physical evidence such as origin and age but not the validity of the message.

locutius wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 4:08pm:

But a work of fiction "The Satanic Verses" and how it was recieved by Muslims is the topic. What non-fiction inspired some of the story and what was made up is just where the discussion has most recently arrived. We may get somewhere with this. Like FD and Emily have both agreed, Scientific method can't really apply except possibly in analysing physical evidence such as origin and age but not the validity of the message.

sorry what I mean is that when discussing the science of the koran etc- arguing it with fictional work is kind of pointless. I'm not saying the two can't exist in the same conversation

perhaps I'm not expressing myself properly

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 3:56pm:

I think if we're going to be talking about the koran and scientific method etc- it might be helpful not to bring fictional works into play (unless they're referring to something believed to be factual)- otherwise, there are total cross purposes here.

The name of the topic and the first post:
The Satanic Verses
"What is the book about, and why did Muslims get so upset about it?"

Is it about Rushdie's book or about Koran?

It is rather obvious that Koran here was mentioned only as attempt to explain why did Muslims get so upset about Rushdie's book.

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 4:11pm:

locutius wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 4:08pm: But a work of fiction "The Satanic Verses" and how it was recieved by Muslims is the topic. What non-fiction inspired some of the story and what was made up is just where the discussion has most recently arrived. We may get somewhere with this. Like FD and Emily have both agreed, Scientific method can't really apply except possibly in analysing physical evidence such as origin and age but not the validity of the message. sorry what I mean is that when discussing the science of the koran etc- arguing it with fictional work is kind of pointless. I'm not saying the two can't exist in the same conversation perhaps I'm not expressing myself properly

It is other way around we are discussing fictional work and explain it with reference to Koran. In any case all of this has nothing to do with science.

Of course you do because you have no idea what to say on the topic proper. Would be better if you read The Satanic Verses first.

Would be better if she stopped being an apologist and butted out

You may download The Satanic Verses from here for free and read the book for yourself.
http://www.filefactory.com/file/ac2b29/n/Salman_Rushdie_-_The_Satanic_Verses_rar

I have deleted a bunch of off topic posts


Quote:

Of course you do because you have no idea what to say on the topic proper. Would be better if you read The Satanic Verses first.

it's called having a sense of humor


Grendel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 6:27pm:

Would be better if she stopped being an apologist and butted out

my comments here have been in regard to the conflation of fiction texts and non-fiction historical texts when analysing a non-fictional historic text (the hadiths)- which is where the topic turned.

it's quite simple really

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:36pm:

I have deleted a bunch of off topic posts Quote: Of course you do because you have no idea what to say on the topic proper. Would be better if you read The Satanic Verses first. it's called having a sense of humor Grendel wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 6:27pm: Would be better if she stopped being an apologist and butted out my comments here have been in regard to the conflation of fiction texts and non-fiction historical texts when analysing a non-fictional historic text (the hadiths)- which is where the topic turned. it's quite simple really

You forgot to delete your "sigh..."

I know that I have great sense of humour no need to remind.

How do you know which ahadith are fictional and which are not after all most of them were written way after the event?

tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:47pm:

You forgot to delete your "sigh..."

thanks I've fixed that- forgive me, quite tired tonight


Quote:

I know that I have great sense of humour no need to remind.

I was more pointing out that I had one and that my comments should therefore be taken in that vein


Quote:

How do you know which ahadith are fictional and which are not after all most of them were written way after the event?

well this is a different point entirely. if your argument is that the hadith is fictional then go for gold.

I was merely pointing to the uselessness of using a fictional work to analyse a non-fictional work- but if you believe both are fictional then rock on

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:58pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 10:47pm: You forgot to delete your "sigh..." thanks I've fixed that- forgive me, quite tired tonight Quote: I know that I have great sense of humour no need to remind. I was more pointing out that I had one and that my comments should therefore be taken in that vein [quote]How do you know which ahadith are fictional and which are not after all most of them were written way after the event?

well this is a different point entirely. if your argument is that the hadith is fictional then go for gold.

I was merely pointing to the uselessness of using a fictional work to analyse a non-fictional work- but if you believe both are fictional then rock on[/quote]

good
good
good but it wasn't me who introduced the "scientific" method argument in the discussion of the great work of fiction. I only provided reference when asked to sources where Rushdie(pbuh) got his information about SV from all of them reputable Islamic historians and scholars.

tallowood wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 11:10pm:

good but it wasn't me who introduced the "scientific" method argument in the discussion of the great work of fiction. I only provided reference when asked to sources where Rushdie(pbuh) got his information about SV from all of them reputable Islamic historians and scholars.

What must be understood is that that early scholars wrote down everything that was reported about Islam, whether true or false, and classified them as such so that later generations would be able to recognise when someone is trying to pull a fast one, i.e. by passing off a fake verse as legit. So yes, its true that scholars did right down things about the so-called SV, but out of their scrupulousness and scholarly integrity, not because they believed them to have any validity. Rushdie may have used these sources for his fictional work (never read it), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter which is that they are forged verses to begin with.

Sam wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 5:50am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 11:10pm: good but it wasn't me who introduced the "scientific" method argument in the discussion of the great work of fiction. I only provided reference when asked to sources where Rushdie(pbuh) got his information about SV from all of them reputable Islamic historians and scholars. What must be understood is that that early scholars wrote down everything that was reported about Islam, whether true or false, and classified them as such so that later generations would be able to recognise when someone is trying to pull a fast one, i.e. by passing off a fake verse as legit. So yes, its true that scholars did right down things about the so-called SV, but out of their scrupulousness and scholarly integrity, not because they believed them to have any validity. Rushdie may have used these sources for his fictional work (never read it), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter which is that they are forged verses to begin with.

Well, why go apeshit over such obvious forgeries? Why act like a raw nerve was touched if they are such obviou nonsense, those satanic verses? Why kill actual people and declare a murderous fatwah over so obvious a mistake?
Why not just be reasonable?

I think blasphemy is punishable by death under Islam. Even if you are only joking.

Perhaps under sharia. Rushdie and his translators did not live under sharia.

Sam wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 5:50am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 11:10pm: good but it wasn't me who introduced the "scientific" method argument in the discussion of the great work of fiction. I only provided reference when asked to sources where Rushdie(pbuh) got his information about SV from all of them reputable Islamic historians and scholars. What must be understood is that that early scholars wrote down everything that was reported about Islam, whether true or false, and classified them as such so that later generations would be able to recognise when someone is trying to pull a fast one, i.e. by passing off a fake verse as legit. So yes, its true that scholars did right down things about the so-called SV, but out of their scrupulousness and scholarly integrity, not because they believed them to have any validity. Rushdie may have used these sources for his fictional work (never read it), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter which is that they are forged verses to begin with.

That's true, Al-Tabari wrote "Let the reader be aware that whatever I mention in my book is relied on the news that were narrated by some men. I had attributed these stories to their narrators, without inferring anything from their incidents ." But that equally puts under the same suspicion the rest of his "History of the Prophets and Kings" including anything about Mohamed.