What is blasphemous in Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses?

It pains me that the JLF was hijacked by politics, and too much emphasis was put on Rushdie affair. I would have liked to read about books discussed in this festival, and interviews of writers from around the world, but what update I had regarding JLF in the media were only about Rushdie and freedom of expression, as if all the writers have been banned to speak their minds. You do speak your mind, but only what will make sense and what will be good for humanity. Rushdie sets out to provoke people, which is his right, but the people whom he provokes also have a right to say 'please, don’t talk bullshit.'


I had written a post on the drama that continued on TV channels during past few days regarding Salman Rushdie’s attendance to Jaipur Literature Festival, but deleted it later on because I felt that it had some generic remarks. I mentioned that he attacked Quran and Prophet (peace be upon him) but I did not know what the severity of his attacks was. 

I had also quoted the comment of Paul Brians who had written notes on Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.  

Between its hostile critics who refuse to read it and its supporters who fail to read it, The Satanic Verses must be one of the most widely-unread best sellers in the history of publishing.

I decided that I will not be one of those hostile critics who refuse to read the book, and to begin with I will not be hostile until I know what offends me. My conclusion after having read the book is that those Muslims who refuse to read it are wise, because they will save themselves from the anguish which I experienced, and their hostility will always be muffled with the dew of ignorance.

Today, I read a long article in support of Rushdie, and it turns out that the good author, who claims to be a  fan of the controversial book, doesn’t even know what Rushdie has written in the book and doubts whether the character Mahound is actually refers to Mohammad  (peace be upon him). Such ignorance of Rushdie’s supporters makes them wonder why Muslims are so offended by the book. Rushdie is anyway very hard to read, and it is impossible to understand his book The Satanic Verses unless you know the historical context of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions. Most Muslims will fail to understand his allusions, which always gets mixed up between fiction and polemic. 

I will write briefly what is offensive in The Satanic Verses. Contrary to what many Muslims might believe, the title The Satanic Verses doesn’t mean that Quran is inspired by Satan. The title comes from the most controversial part of the book that is the chapter Mahound. In this chapter, Rushdie has shown the moral degradation of Makkah before Islamic monotheism, which is in contrast to the selfless and zealous support of the Prophet’s companions (may Allah be pleased with them) towards the strict monotheism, and the suffering and hostility they bear for standing for monotheism and rejection of paganism.  He sometimes uses the word kahin for the Prophet (peace be upon him) which means clairvoyant; as per one narration the Prophet’s enemies had rejected this word as it suggested some truth in the Message. In some text, it might seem that Rushdie suggests that the Message is made of borrowed stories or inner voice, but the continuous streak in the Chapter Mahound seem to accept the divinity of the Quran and integrity of the Prophet.

In this chapter, the character Mahound is carried away to contemplate a proposal of his pagan opponents which is to accept intercession of three of their goddesses. Subsequently he is influenced by satan, under guise of archangel Gibrael, to reveal two verses as part of the divine revelation accepting intercession of the three goddesses. This incident, which is climax of this chapter, causes frenzy and chaos among the pagan audience, and violent disappointment of his companions. The next day the Messenger realises that Satan had visited him in the guise of archangel, so he repudiates these verses.

However, Rushdie cannot stay away from his tendency to ridicule. He uses the name Mahound, which is a derogatory word used for the Prophet (peace be upon him) by Medieval European writers, and has the word ‘hound’ in it which refers to a breed of dogs. The term was especially connected to the Christian belief that Muhammad was a god worshipped by Pagans, or that he was a demon who inspired a false religion. He refers to Kaaba as The House of Black Stone, knowing that Muslims refer to it as House of Allah, and, he refers to Cave Hera as The Mount Cone, perhaps to relate it with con which means deception. He shows the Prophet (peace be upon him) losing consciousness following drinking (he doesn’t mention drinking explicitly but hints to a hangover), and waking up naked, covered only by a sheet, in the bedroom of the wife of the pagan leader.  

In a separate chapter he ridicules the Iranian revolution, and portrays the leaders of the Islamic revolution as villains. He has several characters with the name Ayesha, which may be acceptable as long as he does not refer to the Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet, (may Allah be pleased with her), the mother of believers. But, this venomous writer doesn’t confine to using only the character’s name, but makes direct reference to all the wives of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them), using their names, and uses foul words which I could not bring up to mention it, even to show his wickedness.

With my reading of Midnight’s Children and The Satanic Verses, I see that Salman Rushdie has a tendency to show peculiarities of his characters, and somehow mocks them all and hates a few. The same tendency gets out of control at times. Many Hindus may not be aware of the derogatory references he has made to Hindu gods in Midnight Children and the Satanic Verses. Most Christians and Jews will also not be aware that he curses Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) in the book the Satanic Verses. Rushdie hates a lot of people and he finds an excuse to vilify them in his fiction. Midnight Children is ridden with contemptible allusion to Indian politicians, including several former prime ministers, and one of these Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi whom he described as ‘witch-like widow’ sued him for libel.  He refers to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as ‘Maggie the Bitch’ in the Satanic Verse. In one of the curious affairs in Midnight Children the first person narrator Saleem Sinai exposes a promiscuous wife Lila to her husband Commander Sabarmati, who after confirming the truth shoots his wife and her lover, his wife survives two gun shots, but the lover dies. Before exposing the affair the narrator Saleem Sinar says: ‘… I sat at his feet, and he revealed to me the cobra which lay coiled within myself.’ After he has secretly left the note divulging the affair, he says: ‘At that moment (no point hiding it) I felt the delight of the snake who hits its target, and feels its fangs pierce in its victim’s heel…’  This same cobra-like tendency has got Salman Rushdie in trouble. In continuation of the same said affair in Midnight Children, the narrator then describes how the murderer got support of Indian masses and judges, and in the same string of narration mentions a newspaper discussing the said murder: ‘In Sabarmati case, the noble sentiment of Ramayana combine with the cheap melodrama of the Bombay talkies..’  For readers who are not aware of Ramayana, let me give a brief background that this religious scripture of Hindus has the story of Lord Ram, who is the most revered God of Hindus, fights the evil king Ravana who abducted his wife. It is Rushdie’s sense of humour which has little sensibility.

The only saving grace for the writer is that he has shown Islamic monotheism as a force which is challenging the moral degradation of pre-Islamic Arabs and this message of monotheism frightens the pagans:

At the recommendation of Abu Simbel, the rulers of Jahilia have added to their religious practices the tempting spices of profanity. The city has become famous for its licentiousness, as a gambling den, a whorehouse, a place of bawdy songs and wild, loud music. On one occasion some members of the tribe of Shark went too far in their greed for pilgrim money. The gatekeepers at the House began demanding bribes from weary voyagers; four of them, piqued at receiving no more than a pittance, pushed two travellers to their deaths down the great, steep flight of stairs. This practice backfired, discouraging return visits. . . Today, female pilgrims are often kidnapped for ransom, or sold into concubinage. Gangs of young Sharks patrol the city, keeping their own kind of law. It is said that Abu Simbel meets secretly with the gangleaders and organizes them all. This is the world into which Mahound has brought his message: one one one, Amid such multiplicity, it sounds like a dangerous word.

Those who love to talk about freedom of an artist, I would like to mention that literature concerns about humanity, thus any literature that divides humanity is only work of a dirty mind. An artist’s job is to highlight the sensibilities of different sections of the society, to help people understand that if somebody is outraged, what makes him outraged, rather than being a reason for the outrage. A fiction writer has the opportunity to tell the story of an individual, and delve into the deeper psyche and motives of human beings, rather than treating them ‘extremists’ or ‘loyalist.’ For example, Dostoevsky in his Crime and Punishment emphasizes the motive of a murderer and subsequent suffering of his soul.

In Tom Jones, Henry Fielding refers to a Horace’s rule which can be a good touchstone for writers, and the rule is: ‘what he fears he cannot make attractive with his touch he abandons’ (‘et quae: desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit’).

In a separate chapter, in the same novel, he refers to the intellectual who pretends to find pearls of wisdom by poking in the eyes and hearts of others.  Fielding says:

Whether these philosophers be the same with that surprising sect, who are honourably mentioned by the late Dr. Swift, as having, by the mere force of genius alone, without the least assistance of any kind of learning, or even reading, discovered that profound and invaluable secret that there is no God; or whether they are not rather the same with those who some years since very much alarmed the world, by showing that there were no such things as virtue or goodness really existing in human nature, and who deduced our best actions from pride, I will not here presume to determine. In reality, I am inclined to suspect, that all these several finders of truth, are the very identical men who are by others called the finders of gold*. The method used in both these searches after truth and after gold, being indeed one and the same, viz., the searching, rummaging, and examining into a nasty place; indeed, in the former instances, into the nastiest of all places, A BAD MIND.

I am quoting below the excerpts from Harold Bloom interview in Paris Review. He doesn’t seem very much impressed with Rushdie or his famous work.

Belief should be as passionate and individual a fiction as any strong, idiosyncratic literary work, but it isn’t. It almost never is. Religion has been too contaminated by society, by human hatreds. The history of religion as an institutional or social mode is a continuous horror. At this very moment we see this with the wretched Mr. Rushdie, who, by the way, alas, is not much of a writer. I tried to read Midnight’s Children and found myself quite bored; I have tried to read The Satanic Verses, which seems to me very wordy, very neo-Joycean, very much an inadequate artifice. It is not much better than an upper-middle-brow attempt at serious fiction. Poor wretched fellow, who can blame him? There’s no way for him to apologize because the world is not prepared to protect him from the consequences of having offended a religion. All religions have always been pernicious as social, political, and economic entities. And they always will be.

However, our guide is not Salman Rushdie, we seek guidance from Quran. Allah exhorts us in Quran to avoid speaking evil in public and to pardon an evil.

[004:148] Allâh does not like that the evil should be uttered in public except by him who has been wronged. And Allâh is Ever All-Hearer, All-Knower.

[004:149] Whether you (mankind) disclose (by good words of thanks) a good deed (done to you in the form of a favour by someone), or conceal it, or pardon an evil, ... verily, Allâh is Ever Oft-Pardoning, All-Powerful.

As far as mockery of the Prophet (pbuh) and Quran is concerned, it is not a new thing. Even Salman Rushdie himself describes in Satanic Verses how the message of One God is violently opposed and believers in this oneness are torture. Allah says in Quran that Muslims should avoid sitting in the assembly where His message is being ridiculed. He doesn’t command us to react violently.

[004:140] And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Qur'ân) that when you hear the Verses of Allâh being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allâh will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell.