Jump to content

Jewish author Salman Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses stabbed in the neck


Truthblast
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

That's what I'm asking. I haven't read the book.

 

I can't find much detail about the actual story in the book, other than the usual 'blurb'

 

Quote

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

From: https://www.salmanrushdie.com/the-satanic-verses/

 

Quote

Just before dawn one winter's morning, a hijacked jetliner explodes above the English Channel. Through the falling debris, two figures, Gibreel Farishta, the biggest star in India, and Saladin Chamcha, an expatriate returning from his first visit to Bombay in fifteen years, plummet from the sky, washing up on the snow-covered sands of an English beach, and proceed through a series of metamorphoses, dreams, and revelations.

From: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12781.The_Satanic_Verses

 

I've never read this book, I remember the controversy when it was released, and the 'fatwa' that was issued on Rushdie, but other than "it insulted Islam" the media never went into much detail about it.

 

Here are a couple of choice comments from the GoodReads page:

 

Quote

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

Quote

This is controversial book because of the social context rooted in the story. It didn't take me finishing the book to understand why Salman Rushdie was/is a hated man. Having studied extensively Arab/Middle Eastern/Islamic culture and being a former Arabic linguist, I was able to zero-in on what was being written. The controversy of the Satanic Verses from a historical perspective is a whole other discussion. I am not confident to discuss them so I'm sticking to a book review.

The title is taken from the alleged verses (Surah 53:19-20) that were given to the Prophet as divine revelation. The devil tricked Prophet giving extra verbiage for misleading purposes. The author uses them "Have you heard of Lat, and Manat, and Uzza, the Third, the Other? They are exalted Birds...", pg. 385.

The plot is about two Indian actors who fall out of the sky. Their plane explodes during a terrorist hijacking after takeoff and they fall into the English Channel. As they fall, they are transformed: Gibreel becomes an angel-like character closely resembling the angel Gabriel (Jibril) and Saladin transforms into a cloven-hoofed devil. From there is gets confusing.

The controversy from the writing is in Girbreel's dream sequences are the strong references to Islam:

1. The Prophet Muhammed is called 'Mahound', an alternative name for Muhammed sometimes used during the Middle Ages by Christians who considered him a devil.
2. Later, 'The Curtain, hijab, was the name of the most popular brothel in Jahilia" pg. 388, where the wives of Prophet Muhammed work. Literally, he uses their names: Ayesha, Ramlah, Hafsa, Juwairiyah, 'Mary the Copt', Sawdah, etc. "When the news got around Jahilia that the whores of The Curtain had each assumed identity of one of Mahound's wives, the clandestine excitement of the city's males was intense", pg. 393 and "The fifteen-year-old whore 'Ayesha' was the most popular with the paying public", pg. 394.

From a readability standpoint, Salman Rushdie's writing is very disjointed, wordy, and scattered in thought. There were many times when I was lost and felt like giving up. The writing style was tedious because almost all of it mimics conversation.

Overall I did not care for this book. My honest opinion is Salman Rushdie was trying to piss people off but writers do that sometimes. I would recommend 'Shame' and 'Shalimar the Clown' for better examples of his storytelling ability. If you didn't like this book, maybe give his other works a chance. Thanks!

 

Still not really interested in reading it to be honest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

I can't find much detail about the actual story in the book, other than the usual 'blurb'

 

From: https://www.salmanrushdie.com/the-satanic-verses/

 

From: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12781.The_Satanic_Verses

 

I've never read this book, I remember the controversy when it was released, and the 'fatwa' that was issued on Rushdie, but other than "it insulted Islam" the media never went into much detail about it.

 

Here are a couple of choice comments from the GoodReads page:

 

 

Still not really interested in reading it to be honest.

 

On overlooking it quickly on PDF, to me, it reads a load of nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, greatdayforfreedom said:

Only the aftermath of this 'attack' was filmed, with people running on to the stage to restrain the attacker, but I find it strange that nobody managed to film the moment he was attacked. 

 

Very strange, hmm 🤔 He was supposedly stabbed 15 times.

They only filmed the attacker being arrested. 

Edited by alexa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, alexa said:

It reels off like a typical false flag.


Neither seemed too traumatised whilst talking about it, quite matter of fact. Anyone genuinely been near violence/violent crime? Not something you bounce back from too fast, generally speaking. But it does all seem a little odd, but what doesn't at this point?

Partly expecting him to be MAGA or something.

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Jones says hurty words and is getting sued for a zillion dollars

 

Salman says hurty words and is stabbed in the neck.

 

I wonder why the different reaction?

Is there some underlying motivation for the difference?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

II remember the controversy when it was released, and the 'fatwa' that was issued on Rushdie, but other than "it insulted Islam" the media never went into much detail about it.

 

Wth all due respect, in a way that reminded me of the racist insults to the England footballers. We were not told the words, not allowed to hear? And yet last week a presenter said we all know they were attacked. Do we? I doubt it, seeing as real insults / a good 'right hook' insult can't get a look 'nowadays' 😁 I refer to the media, not book buying. 

 

Today on the radio a commentator said it was a book of ideas, someone's ideas. That's undeniable. Later a presenter said I've got a voice, you've got a voice, you can ring in with anything, as long as it's not hate speech.

 

Arsehole.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Observations said:

Wth all due respect, in a way that reminded me of the racist insults to the England footballers. We were not told the words, not allowed to hear? And yet last week a presenter said we all know they were attacked. Do we? I doubt it, seeing as real insults / a good 'right hook' insult can't get a look 'nowadays' 😁 I refer to the media, not book buying. 

 

Yes, it is true, the Satanic Verses controversy was in 1988, and the media hasn't changed since then, only ever telling 'half a story' or not giving out full details.

 

It's like when the Birmingham Mail (or any other local Reach Plc rag) publishes a story about some road being closed because of a 'police incident', its never revealed what the incident actually was, that's all you 'need to know' that there "has been an incident".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

Yes, it is true, the Satanic Verses controversy was in 1988, and the media hasn't changed since then, only ever telling 'half a story' or not giving out full details.

 

It's like when the Birmingham Mail (or any other local Reach Plc rag) publishes a story about some road being closed because of a 'police incident', its never revealed what the incident actually was, that's all you 'need to know' that there "has been an incident".

 

Interesting. Yeah it all adds up doesn't it. During Convid 😅 when we were trying to find out who was on the board of SAGE, someone on the radio said It should be secret, maybe because we might abuse them? I'll have a think. It was so blatantly sign of the times. 

 

When you say 1988, I'm still trying to process that it was that long ago. It's given me an indication of how my gut instinct was working back then. 

 

Edited by Observations
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Truthblast said:

Wanna know why Masonic lodges have checkerboard floors?

 

It represents base consciousness where a person is unable to discearn between light and dark. They have not unified the opposites to achieve higher consciousness

 

This is why the silitoe tartan is wrapped around the hat of policemen and women: the freemasonic higher ups are mocking their footsoldiers as being lacking in natural law

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ibizan Hound said:

 

"Salman will likely lose one eye; the nerves in his arm were severed"

 

The right eye? The Antichrist/Dajjal is said to have a darkened right eye and a gimpy arm. 😬😄

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ibizan Hound said:

Don't be stupid. It's clear that he was always jewish and that wikipedia was covering his jewish identity to thwart their insult to Islam. He doesn't look Indian nor would the media promote a meaningless book so we'll unless a kike wrote it.

 

Of course, how monstrously retarded of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

Yes, it is true, the Satanic Verses controversy was in 1988, and the media hasn't changed since then, only ever telling 'half a story' or not giving out full details.

 

It's like when the Birmingham Mail (or any other local Reach Plc rag) publishes a story about some road being closed because of a 'police incident', its never revealed what the incident actually was, that's all you 'need to know' that there "has been an incident".

 

I read it a long time ago, and it was a difficult book to follow at the time, however one thing stood out. The fatwa was made by Ayatollah Khomeini only 4 months before he died. Why him in particular? Because there's a character in the book based on him, an exiled Muslim leader living in Paris in the 1970s before the Iranian revolution who as I recall is  described rather badly. So my theory is that the whole anti-Islam narrative is a device to stir up a mob, and a smokescreen to hide the actual motive for the fatwa, which was revenge on the criticism of the Ayatollah in the book. 

Edited by Campion
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, greatdayforfreedom said:

Look at this pathetic piece of filming, and the eyewitness doesn't seem convincing.

 

 

Just thinking out loud here.

 

Rushdie is indeed an actor now(he appeared in a series of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" in which he played himself)

 

If this is a false flag what purpose does it serves to make a public target of anyone saying hurty words of the religion of peace or associating with them;as JK Rowling is discovering.

 

This script is Deep,it is in a State of controlling a certain narrative and if a former potus becomes vocal on the subject it would perhaps be a trigger to a second US civil war?

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...