Once again, this posting has been delayed for about a week by falling between some software cracks...  In article <114525@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >As promised, here is Rafiq Zakaria's discussion of the nature of >the so-called "satanic verses" from which Rushdie's title has been >taken. (Rafiq Zakaria, _Muhammad and the Quran_, Penguin '91)  [Here follows an introduction to the controversial incident, and an  apologetic explanation purporting to show why it couldn't actually  have happened.  The historicity of the episode doesn't matter to what  follows]  I don't know whether I'm quoting Gregg or Zakaria below.  Anyway, back to current affairs,  >Rushdie has, by his own admission, drawn >on the version given by [the orientalist] Watt   Among others; this incident is not something Rushdie or Watt or anyone else dug up from nowhere, it is a well known story, a myth if you will, known (according to Umar Khan) to "Every Muslim school boy and girl", and so presumably to Rushdie, and to Gibreel Farishta.  >and then allowed his >imagination to run wild   Yes, this is what writing fiction is all about.  Rushdie was writing about a crisis of faith, and chose this myth to present it, by placing the actor "Gibreel" in the role of the angel whose name he took. Rushdie was not writing a history or theology book, and nowhere claims or implies that this is what actually happened.  It's somewhat like stories woven around the relationship between Jesus and the reformed prostitute Mary Magdalene (another myth).  Or those referring to the Arthurian mythos, or the Grail legend, or the Wandering Jew, or dozens of others.  If you can stand to read the work of a blasphemer, consider Salman Rushdie's children's book "Haroun and the Sea of Stories" for an idea of the way a storyteller -- a specific storyteller -- works with existing story lines.  >to ridicule Muhammad's integrity...  No.  Muhammad's [Mahound's] integrity is not really impugned in this part of the story, and there's no reason to think this was Rushdie's intent: Gibreel, as the archangel, produces the verses (divine and satanic), though he doesn't know their provenance.  It is not implied (in a straight reading) that Muhammad influences them:      " *Not my voice* I'd never know such words I'm no classy speaker     never was never will be but this isn't my voice it's a Voice.       Mahound's eyes open wide, he's seeing some kind of vision,     staring at it, oh, that's right, Gibreel remembers, me.  He's     seeing me.  My lips moving, being moved by.  What, whom?  Don't     know, can't say.  Nevertheless, here they are, coming out of my     mouth, up my throat, past my teeth: the Words.       Being God's postman is no fun, yaar.       Butbutbut: God isn't in this picture.       God knows whose postman I've been."  It's ambiguous: is Mahound somehow manipulating Gibreel?  Is it Satan? Or something else?  The answer is not given.  To be sure, the question is raised.  This novel explores faith and the role of revelation in religion, among other things.  Addressing loss of faith implicitly raises questions about the truth of revelation, but this novel proposes no answers, at least not directly.  The very existence of a newsgroup named "alt.atheism" raises the same questions, more forcefully, and does propose some answers, which is the real relevance.  If Rushdie's mild fictional exploration is "filth and lies", and he "asked for what he got", are we next on the fatwa list?  (That's a rhetorical question, of course.) --  Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.