Talk:Satanic Verses controversy

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

Banned Books

Shouldn't the Muslim and left wing attempts to burn and ban his book be listed here, or is book banning not controversial anymore? 2601:246:5A83:D090:A9E8:54DD:CE07:C76D (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Satanic Verses controversy#Muslim response and book bannings it's the fourth element in the table of contents. Also out of curiosity I want back and checked the articles history and the original version from 2007[1] doesn't have a specific section about book banning but does list them in it's 'Reception: Timeline' section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"Unscientific"

In the article there is cited the following opinions:

Belief that fictional elements of the novel were not flights of imagination but lies. Complaints included that it was "neither a critical appraisal nor a piece of historical research",[106] that the novel failed to rely on "scientific and logical arguments",[107] its "lack of scientific, accurate or objective methods of research",[108] "unfounded lies", not being "serious or scientific",[109] "a total distortion of historical facts",[110] being "not at all an objective or scientific opinion".[111]

A western reader might find these comments perplexing. It should be noted that due to the particular development of Islamic theology, a sort of rational irrationalist was allowed to develop. While protestant theology emphasized the independence of belief from reason, Islam came to justify itself precisely in terms of "reason" and "knowledge". The world was imagined in an arbitrary and nihilistic way, such that everything that could be thought could be, the existence and necessity of nothing being assured except through the will of Allah. Such that a prerequisite to reason was blind acceptance of Islam. Once you had blindly accepted it, then reason could take place, because only it could provide any true facts with which to construct any knowledge. Furthermore, while the Koran and Sunnah are the root of all rationality and objectivity, also the common Muslim isn't allowed to interpret these themselves either. As only the Ulema possess true knowledge of the religious sciences, such that it is obligatory to defer to them, and the average Muslim isn't allowed to interpret the text themselves.

So when the above say that Rushdie is "not being scientific", or "logical", or "objective", a western reader would just scratch their head, as we do not use these terms this way. All this means is that Islamic dogma is believed to have been contradicted, or that any speculative expression on theology at all was believed to be made by someone without 'ilm. Since Islam is the root of an reason and science, the expression of any thought that may taken as contradicting Islamic dogma is inherently irrational and unobjective. It doesn't matter that it's speculative and fictional, since speculation isn't allowed. That's how you get absurdities like a piece of fiction being called out for "lies". Objectivity in this matter is simply repetition of dogma, attempting to have any dialectic at all for philosphical purposes is just assumed to be a malicious attempt to mislead people. The Koran is prior to logic, science, and reason and the ulema are the only valid sources on the Koran.

Even though a non-Muslim can read the Koran, the source of all knowledge, they cannot have known anything clearly if they did not convert, because obviously it's all so logical and objective. The logical and objective thing of course being to have blind faith. Then you can *start* being objective about things that are not Islam, but you aren't even allowed opinions really about Islam itself at that point, bc that's only the ulema. If you were super rational in fact you would just have the blindest faith, because having the most faith is the most rational thing you can do, and questioning things, while normally a prerequisite for all reason, is a sign of lack of faith and therefore irrationality. A truly faithful Muslim would always accept the dictates of the ulema without question, as Muslims they are not after all morally responsible for having executed an ultimately morally incorrect judgement, as how could they have known? And the ulema here also aren't responsible at all for an incorrect judgement, after all humans are fallible and they could've just made a mistake. So even if Khameneis judgement was wrong, the person who kills Rushdie still is martyr, because how could he have known? It is the definition of rationally to just acede to such things. Meanwhile Khomeini also would not be morally stained, as it could've just been an honest mistake. This is morally upright and rational behavior of course. Such deference is never extended to anyone else.

Of course, the free thinking Muslims are bullied the worst. As harassment and suppression of the true moderates to create a facade of uncontested support for the Islamists is part and parcel of the strategy.2601:140:8D01:C90:53BA:E014:176D:9942 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So what is the purpose of this rant? These are quotes. What exactly are you asking to be added or removed on the page? SecretSpectre (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)