>>7442428
>>7442405
NO DIFFERENCE… Dummies ….. do you research.. Sorry of my attitude
Satanic Verses in the Quran
Muslims claim that the Koran contains the words of Allah, 100%, but
the Koran not only has Satanic verses, but also a demonic sura. Unbeliev-
ably, a whole sura (chapter) in the Koran is named after the demons.
Shocking but true. Sura 72 is entitled Jinn (demons), Here is a short
quote:
“1. Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns
listened [to the Koran] They said, we have really heard a
wonderful Recital!
-
It gives guidance to the right, and we have believed therein
we shall not join [in worship] any [gods] with our Lord.
-
And exalted is the majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither
a wife nor a son.
-
There are some foolish ones among us who used to utter
extravagant lies against God.
-
But we do think that no man or spirit should say aught that
is untrue against God.
-
True, there were persons among mankind who took shelter
with persons among the jinns but they increased them in folly.
-
And they [came to] think as ye thought, that God would not
raise up anyone [to judgement].
-
And we pried into the secret of heaven: but we found it filled
with stern guards and flaming fires.
36 Islam Reviewed
The Satanic Verses
and
the Demonic Text
To see the devil as a partisan of
Evil and an angel as a warrior
on the side of Good is to accept the demagogy of the angels.
Things are of course more complicated than that.
– Milan Kundera,
The Book of Laughter and Forgetting
1
BANNED BOOK
In his essay “In Good Faith” (1990), Sa
lman Rushdie discusses the reactions
his novel,
The Satanic Verses
(1988; “SV”) has evoked around the world.
2
According to Rushdie, his novel has been treated as “a work of bad history,
as an anti-religious pamphlet, as the product of an international capitalist-
Jewish conspiracy, as an act of murder,”
everything but literature, a work of
fiction. Rushdie is especially mystifie
d by the claims that when he was writ-
ing
The Satanic Verses
he
knew exactly what he was doing
. “
He did it on pur-
pose
is one of the strangest accusations ev
er levelled at a writer. Of course I
did on purpose. The question is, and it is
what I have tried to answer [in this
essay]: what is the ‘it’ that I did?”
3
A critical reader is faced with the same
question; furthermore, the novel itself seems to question ‘I’ as well as ‘it’: it
tests the limits of ‘authorship’ – the id
ea of an unified, fully conscious and
purposeful author.
Both in the analysis of the novel,
and in making any comments on the
uproar following its publication, the complex role of de-contextualisation
should be given careful attention. Writing is dangerous, as Jacques Derrida
has noted.
4
Derrida emphasises the radical
iterability
of any written commu-
nication; it must “remain legible desp
ite the absolute di
sappearance of every
determined addressee in general for it to function as writing, that is, for it to
be legible.” In a sharp contrast to the idea of writing as a means to convey
the intended meaning, writing is (sometimes, as in Rushdie’s case,
https://people.uta.fi/~tlilma/Demon_2005/Chapter_10.pdf