Talk:The Satanic Verses controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Contradictory Statements

"February 14, 1989: ... the 15 Khordad Foundation, an Iranian religious foundation or bonyad, offers a reward of $US1 million or 200 million rials for the murder of Rushdie."

"1993: The 15 Khordad Foundation in Iran raises the reward for Rushdie's murder to $300,000."

"1997: The bounty is doubled, to $600,000."

"February 14, 2000: Ayatollah Hassan Saneii, the head of the 15th of Khordad Foundation, reiterates that the death sentence remains valid and the foundation's $2.6 million reward will be paid with interest to Rushdie's assassins. Persians take this news with some skepticism as the foundation is "widely known" to be bankrupt."

My guess is that the actual reward was initially $1,000,000, it was increased by $300,000 to $1,300,000, then doubled to $2,600,000.

Connor Gilbert 18:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is value of rials. 200 million rials was equal to about $100,000 US on the black market and several million $ US officially. --BoogaLouie 00:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources

Was reading an unrelated article at http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/white951.htm#23. It lists several interesting articles related to this subject. Unfortunantly I dont have access to any sources that can confirm these articles. I would like to read them myself. Also Newslinks coverage of The strait times only goes back to july 1989. Can anyone confirm the following articles exsistance or perhaps even have a online source for them ?

"Muis wants Rushdie book banned," The Straits Times (Singapore), 12 March 1989,(Muis is the Muslim Religious Council).
"Protesters join `death for Rushdie' call," The Straits Times (Singapore), 26 February 1989, 9
"Islam's future in Malaysia `not up to Muslims only'," The Straits Times [Singapore], 12 March 1989, 16

[edit] Idol

Isn't this anger an example of Idol worship?


[edit] Proposed Disambiguation page

There is now a Satanic Verses article on the Quranic ayat issue, a The Satanic Verses article on the Rushdie novel and an The Satanic Verses controversy article on the fatwa against the novel and related issues.

I propose creating a Disambiguation page, which will mean I think changing the article on the novel back to Satanic Verses (novel) --BoogaLouie 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial elements

I added the copyediting tag to this section, because I find it very difficult to understand. The sentence about prostitutes and "Muhammad’s wives" is very awkwardly structured. The claim that the novel has nothing to do with Islam is contradicted by most of the rest of the article. Abraham is called a "bastard," but it's not clear by whom. One of the characters? The narrator? In general, this section could be made much more clear.

I don't know enough about the materal to feel comfortable editing this myself.Toscaesque 15:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Controversial elements of The Satanic Verses

Does anyone still think this needs copyediting? or should I take the tag off?--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

tag removed --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is heavily sourced from a single book that, as cited, certainly doesn't seem terribly neutral or non-partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.59.50 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic Verses as a pious work

I don't have a source handy, but I remember one of the arguments against the fatwah (advanced by Rushdie himself among others), is that the novel is in part an expression of piety. The "blasphemous" passages all occur in the dreams of a man who has fallen into madness and despair (Farishta) because he has lost his religious faith. The dreams cause him great agony and deepen this crisis. He recovers from his mental illness, and the dreams stop, only when he rediscovers his faith. Apart from the aburdity of condemning a man to death for something dreamed by a character in a work of fiction, the actual message of the dreams and the narrative that frames them is that blasphemous ideas cause pain. It seems to me that this should be incorporated into the article. Anyone agree? Anyone remember the article where Rushdie said this and have a cite for it? Psychlist (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Psychlist

[edit] Sentence removed about Dahl

I've removed the part in italics from:

Roald Dahl, a British author and member of the Literaray Guild had some pertinent remarks as reproduced ...

I feel that it shows a point of view, which Wikipedia tries to avoid.

You may know better than me, as I'm no expert in the subject of the article. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)