From: tstpcc@gwunix1.gwu.edu (Paul C. Chemmanoor)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Nos Tacemus -- [The Satanic Verses] -- Icarus.
Date: 11 Jan 1993 20:15:05 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Nos Tacemus -- [The Satanic Verses ] -- Icarus.
-----------------------------------------------

0] Well folks time for another column.
   I have chosen to write this time about the 'The Satanic Verses'.
   I have just finished reading the book, and I thought I would
   share a few thoughts. 
   I know this is a controversial topic, and that it usually
   generates a lot of heat, but it is such an interesting topic I 
   couldnt resist it.
   As usual feel free to flame me :-) Chances are posted flames
   will get wasted, as I read soc.culture.indian only sporadically.
   I try to be consistent in my writing, but I am as liable to slip
   up as the next man [ well not quite as much :-) ]. If so tell me
   about it.
   
   ...................................................................
  . Statutory Warning: The{se musings may contain highly subjective  .
  . opinions, unsubstantiated allegations, assertions, imperatives, .
  . subliminal erotica and other material that may be of a harmful  .
  . nature to the extremely gullible or those under 21.             .
  ...................................................................

   1] First things first.
      Let me state my biases.
      I like salman rushdies writings.
      'Midnights Children' was a great book.
      'Shame' was successful in its imagery.
      'Grimus' I found too dependant on symbolism that was not 
       explained suffeciently, still, the power of description that
       bloomed in salmans later books was evident even then.
       
   2] The fundamental premise of the book 'The Satanic Verses' on which
      the whole tale hangs is just what the title says: 
      The alleged satanic verses.

      In short this is the basis:
    
      When islam was just taking root in mecca, and mohammed (PBUH) 
      was still building up his group of followers, mecca was ruled
      by a local chief who was suspicious and apprehensive of
      mohammed (PBUH). 
      Mecca at the time was a great pilgrim centre for people from
      all over the arab world, who came their to worship a whole
      army of idols that had collected there since ancient times.

      Mohammed (PBUH) posed a threat to this pantheistic worship
      and the revenue that arose from it by preaching his 
      monotheistic religion where there was no God but Allah.
      
      In a fit of genius the local chief makes a proposition to 
      Mohammed(PBUH): Accept, three, no more, but three out of the
      hundreds of gods that were housed in the temple, in exchange
      for the whole of mecca embracing islam.

      This much is history. I remember reading this in H.G. Wells
      outline of world history. ["Long years ago", as Nehru keeps
      saying. I cant think of HG. Wells outline of world history
      without dredging up memories of 'Glimpses of World History'
      nehrus answer to Wells book, what with its refernces to 
      Max Mueller and other souls considered lost in these times.]

      Now enter, rushdie, and his interpretation of what transpired
      afterward. 

      The Prophet communicates to God through the medium of the
      archangel gabriel, [ who is revered in three world religions:
      Islam, Christianity & Judaism.]
      The Prohpet decides he will seek divine guidance and accordingly
      climbs to the hill where he usually meets Gabriel.
      When he comes down he walks to the center of the city and 
      recites the verses that install the three godesses that the
      local chief had asked to be included as divine. 
      
      A week later, the Prophet disowns the verses he had recited
      accepting the godesses Al-Lat, et al. and composing new ones
      in their places, explaining that the previous verses were 
      inspired not by the archangel, but by "Shaitan", the devil.
      
      Thus the satanic verses.

2] So this is the single thread that Salman uses to build the
   massive book. I personally feel that he could have written a
   better book, so powerful is this single concept. 
   In terms of style, I think he could have used a linear story
   telling mechanism to much greater effect. He trivialises the
   concept with the absurdity of his characters. 

   This concept in itself has a touch of genius that I have rarely 
   felt. By this I dont mean any disrespect to any religion, I guess
   its just my sensitivity for the "power of the story". 
   I always felt that the movie "JFK" would have been a work of
   genius *if* there was never anyone called JFK, and no assasination, 
   but was purely a creation of the author. The same applies to story
   of Christ, or the story of the rise of Adolf hitler.
   Life is much too rich and dramatic to fit in one persons
   mind, let alone, allow him to write it into black and white.

3] Now other questions.
   Did Salman know he was going to get hit by the muslim reaction ?
   Frankly, I wonder at his affectations of surprise.
   He was playing with fire. And he knew it. 
   
   The references to the prophets wives and the reaction was 
   unneccessary and pointless. It provided an easy point of focus
   for his critics and added little to the book.

 
4] There are even more troubling questions.
   Is it right to delve into articles of faith for the sake of
   "drama" ? I really dont know.
   
   But I can understand how the "Satanic verses" would become
   a self-fulfilling prophecy. The book that salman wrote would
   seem to the devout muslim to be the work of evil.
   Much like the book "the seven minutes" which is about a 
   book called "the seven minutes" becomes that book, by the
   time the reader finishes the book.

   I agree that the "Satanic Verses" does and will offend 
   orthodox muslims, while insisting that it is still a work
   of great artistic merit and achievement, and viewed from
   a "dramatic" angle even a work of genius.
   
   I agree that the book is heretic, but I do not agree that
   a heretic should be killed.
 
5] More later if I have more time.
   I would really like it if someone who knows sends me mail
   about the historical veracity of the events described by
   salman, wrt the verses in q.
   
   Needless to say, all the comments I have made here are
   made in sincerity.

   Any comments to paulchem@tigger.cs.colorado.edu
   Stay Cool.






---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.    ~ ~                                                                  .
.    o o         signito ergo sum.                                        .
.     |       i sign therefore i am.               paul chemmanoor        .
.     =                                            washington d.c.        .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------