'Satanic Verses' premiere passes off peacefully

[Muhammad]

I disagree that you actually need to read the book to realise what it's saying. Judging from all the anger it has already caused, comments made about the book and rebuttals against the nonsense it propagates, it is quite clear that one would be angered by such lies and distortions against Islam. And that's exactly what it contains.

There is no need to buy the book to discuss it - many have already done so:

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/880-alleged-satanic-verses.html

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^Couldn't have said it better myself! That would be my reply to u oh mr gibson...>.<

That was precisely what your words implied - that getting angry about perceived insults was the right thing to do.

If you feel that's what it implies, doesn't mean I said that. Oye.

Then (depending on your acting ability) it would be indistinguishable to an outsider from non-anger, which is an entirely different situation

No its called controlling ones anger, doesnt mean I wouldnt feel it.

Why would it offend you if I'm expressing anger over the book, not you? So if I express anger over people putting girls into prostitution, or over someone killing so many people, that would be hurtful to you? Hmm.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I disagree that you actually need to read the book to realise what it's saying. Judging from all the anger it has already caused, comments made about the book and rebuttals against the nonsense it propagates, it is quite clear that one would be angered by such lies and distortions against Islam. And that's exactly what it contains.

Funny. I could say the exact same thing about the Quran. I'd be wrong. So are you.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Negative...

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Funny. I could say the exact same thing about the Quran. I'd be wrong. So are you.

The two books we are talking about have completely different purposes and sources, hence they cannot even be compared.

The Qur'an is a book of clear guidance and came to teach people the truth. It is the Words of Allaah, exalted be He. If you have not read it yourself, you have denied yourself the opportunity to see what God has to say to you - and evidently that would be something of benefit and value. If one looks at the effects the book has had on mankind, it only further encourages one to study it.

On the other hand, we have the 'Satanic Verses', which, from its very name, exudes insult and distortion. It is not claimed to be an infallible work of divine nature, rather it is the work of human hands, the purpose of which is to perhaps attack a holy scripture. That in itself is enough reason to dismiss the book based upon the reaction it has caused, as well as the rebuttals made against it from those who are better qualified in the field of exegesis.

 

[barney]

The book is very very dull. Rushdie isnt that great an author. He's just famous and his book is famous because he has a fatwa to kill him on sight in effect.
Without the Fatwa nobody would have read it.

BTW, anyone know if this play actually was attended by a crowd? If no muslims are waving death threat placards about it, nobody will want to see it.

Kirk, dont waste your money, just google about it, it summs up what the alleged verses are and the refutations of them.

 

[Pygoscelis]

If no muslims are waving death threat placards about it, nobody will want to see it.
.

This is oh so very true. Same for those now infamous cartoons. If muslims hadn't gone rabid over them, nobody would have noticed the cartoons existed. You can see this in how late the reaction was. They were printed long before the stink was raised, and very few people knew or cared about them before it was.

 

[Muezzin]

I won't criticise Rushdie's book because I haven't read it, and frankly, I want to read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' again.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I disagree that you actually need to read the book to realise what it's saying. Judging from all the anger it has already caused, comments made about the book and rebuttals against the nonsense it propagates, it is quite clear that one would be angered by such lies and distortions against Islam. And that's exactly what it contains.

Lies and distortions? Of course - it is a work of fiction. Fiction is by definition fictive, or fabricated.

There is no need to buy the book to discuss it - many have already done so:

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/880-alleged-satanic-verses.html

You are entitled to your view, of course.

How many Muslims have actually read 'The Satanic Verses'? How many would have been prepared to follow out Khomeini's order without having read it?

If you feel that's what it implies, doesn't mean I said that. Oye.

Whether you like it or not, it does.

Then (depending on your acting ability) it would be indistinguishable to an outsider from non-anger, which is an entirely different situation

No its called controlling ones anger, doesnt mean I wouldnt feel it.

Which is why I said "to an outsider".

Why would it offend you if I'm expressing anger over the book, not you?

I'm not offended, I just think you're wrong. You're criticising a book which, as far as I know, you have not read. In my view, that is a very ignorant thing to do.

So if I express anger over people putting girls into prostitution, or over someone killing so many people, that would be hurtful to you? Hmm.

Those are dangerous and frequently illegal acts. Publishing a work of fiction is not. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

The book is very very dull.

I remember finding it to be powerfully written and, in some places, hilarious. I enjoyed 'Midnight's Children' more, though.

Rushdie isnt that great an author. He's just famous and his book is famous because he has a fatwa to kill him on sight in effect.
Without the Fatwa nobody would have read it.

Rushdie was a major figure on the English-speaking literary scene at least seven years before he wrote 'The Satanic Verses' and incurred Khomeini's 'death sentence'. His second novel, 'Midnight's Children', won the Booker prize in 1981, and then won the 'Booker of Bookers' in 1993 for being, in the judges' opinion, the best book ever to win the prize up to that point.

That doesn't tend to happen to people who are no good at writing.

I won't criticise Rushdie's book because I haven't read it, and frankly, I want to read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' again.

The voice of reason. I wish more people thought like you, Muezzin. Especially people in Year Ten...

Peace

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Whether you like it or not, it does.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking. I fail to see why it's my fault if that is how your mind comprehends it, or at least wants too.

Those are dangerous and frequently illegal acts. Publishing a work of fiction is not. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

It has nothing to do with whether it is illegal or not. Just cause a man made law says you can do this and not this, doesn't necessarily mean it is appropriate or even correct.

Ok so it's alright for people to make fun of my faith without proper knowledge, to take things out of context and me not being able to express my anger over it, isnt? It's ok for people like those, who are physically sparking anger and I can't respond to it, with even a BIT of anger? I should let those people verbally hurt me by attacking what I hold dear to me. It's hurtful that I want to hate it or express anger without actually hurting anyone in the process? Hypocrisy.

 

[- Qatada -]

A note to czgibson, Khomeini isn't a part of mainstream Islam. Therefore for the masses to argue that he is a leader for the majority of the Muslims' - this isn't true at all. He was from the Shi'a, and we know that they are the minority, and not the mainstream Islam.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

A note to czgibson, Khomeini isn't a part of mainstream Islam. Therefore for the masses to argue that he is a leader for the majority of the Muslims' - this isn't true at all. He was from the Shi'a, and we know that they are the minority, and not the mainstream Islam.

That's a good point - thanks for bringing it up. This also, from wikipedia:

[Khomeini's Rushdie] fatwa has also been attacked for violating the rules of fiqh by not allowing the accused an opportunity to defend himself, and because "even the most rigorous and extreme of the classical jurist only require a Muslim to kill anyone who insults the Prophet in his hearing and in his presence."

Source

Peace