"The Satanic Verses", muslims hate it. Kafirs have not clue what it is about. Who can enlighten us?

Question

What is it about? Don't just say it is fictional, are you sure its fictional or you have no clue what is it about?

I'm asking about the contents of the book and not asking you to insult the author!

I'm asking about the contents of the book, not asking you to insult the author!

thanks theo! Really great.

Answer 1

here is some cut and paste info on the original 'satanic verses'.

Thus, opposition to Muhammad came from prosperous merchants who feared his success and resented his criticism of their way of life. Muhammad seems to have even compromised his monotheism, at first, to make peace with the Meccans. This is the incident retold in The Satanic Verses, and since the story comes from impeccable Muslim sources ( al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd), Muslims are not justified in blaming infidels for its fabrication. While Muhammad was still hoping to compromise with the Meccan merchants, he received a revelation that the favorite deities of the Meccans— al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat— might be regarded as divine beings whose intercession was effectual with God. But Muhammad soon recognized these verses as interpolations of Satan and received further revelations abrogating the Satanic verses, but retaining the names of the goddesses, and adding that it was unfair that God should have daughters while humans had sons (sura 53.19-23). During this period the powerful merchants may have been boycotted by Muhammad and his entire family. After the death of his uncle, Abu Talib, and his wife Khadija, Muhammad's position become more and more unsupportable, and he sought to establish himself in Taif without success. p.77

Again, we have from impeccable Muslim sources ( al-Tabari; Waqidi), the damaging story of the Satanic Verses (an expression coined by Muir in the late 1850s, and now well known). During his days in Mecca, before the flight to Medina, Muhammad was sitting with some eminent men of Mecca next to the Kaaba, when he began to recite sura 53, which describes Gabriel's first visit to Muhammad and then goes on to the second visit:

He also saw him [Gabriel] another time
By the Lote tree at the furthest boundary
Near to which is the Paradise of rest,
When the Lote tree covered that which it covered,
His sight turned not aside, neither did it wander
And verily he beheld some of the greatest Signs of his Lord
What do you think of Lat and Uzza
And Manat the third beside?
At this point, we are told that Satan put into his mouth words of reconciliation and compromise:

These are exalted Females
Whose intercession verily is to be sought after.

Of course, the Meccans were delighted at this recognition of their deities and are said to have prayed with the Muslims. But Muhammad himself was visited by Gabriel who reprimanded him and told him that the true ending to the verse should have been:

What! shall there be male progeny unto you, and female unto Him?
That were indeed an unjust partition!
They are naught but names, which ye and your fathers have invented.

Muslims have always been uncomfortable with this story, unwilling to believe that the Prophet could have made such a concession to idolatry. But if we accept the authenticity of the Muslim sources in general, there is no reason to reject the story. It seems unthinkable that such a story could have been invented by a devout Muslim such as al-Tabari, or that he could have accepted it from a dubious source. 226 Besides, it explains the fact why those Muslims who had fled to Abyssinia returned: they had heard that the Meccans had converted. It seems apparent that this was no sudden lapse on the part of Muhammad, but had been carefully calculated to win the support of the Meccans. It also casts serious doubts on Muhammad's sincerity: Even if Satan had really put the words in his mouth, what faith can we put in a man so easily led astray by Satan? Why did God let it happen? How do we know there are no other passages where Muhammad has not been led astray? p.101
from "why i am not a muslim" inb warraq.
some of us kufir do know.

Answer 2

Do you mean LaVey's writings?

They're inspired, passionate, deep and fascinating. But also not very well thought-out and LaVey seemed to go off on tangents easily.

Like I said a couple days ago, if there's one flaw in Satanic philosophy that I can find, it's that it carries with it a sense of arrogance. A lot of Satanists see themselves as the elite of the elite, giants among dwarves.

Satanists often don't even believe in "Satan" as a sentient being or as a "Lord of darkness". They see "Satan" as a symbol of our carnal nature. We eat meat, so we should enjoy eating meat. We make love, so we should revel in making love. We hurt eachother, so we should hurt eachother with enthusiasm.

Mind you, most Satanists believe in the power of love - But it's a love they give only to those they deem worthy of it. Much like Christians do. Satanists are just honest about it.

Satanic philosophy puts a lot of emphasis on self-perfection - That is, to constantly upgrade the mind, body and spirit. Intense study of the world, physical excercise and examination of the spirit is a part of the Satanist's day-to-day routine.

What's interesting is that while most religions aim to kill one's own religious doubts, Satanists consider doubt their most important tool. They use it as a gauge with which they measure their own beliefs and the beliefs of those around them.

However, while NOTHING is officially "against" Satanic thought, there's exceptions to every rule imaginable.

Answer 3

Maybe it's just me, but something just does not seem right about it...

I heard that Muslims hate it because apparently it mocks the prophet Muhammed, but how could Muslims even take a book called "the SATANIC verses" seriously?! Since when do they believe in Satan?

If they believe in Satan, they must also believe in the Christian God, and I thought Allah was the only true God?

Answer 4

Ahmed Deedat of course:

http://www.jamaat.net/rushdie/Rushdie.html

Here is an extract of the above link:

"ONLY DERAMING SEX WITH QUEEN

Chamcha (another name of Rushdie in the TSV, see page 12) he found himself dreaming of the Queen, of MAKING TENDER LOVE to the MONARCH. She was the body Britain, the avatar of the state, and he had chosen her, JOINED WITH HER; she was his Beloved, the moon of his delight."11(Page 169 of TSV.) What is Rushdie telling his readers, if not that he ****** her Majesty. "Joined with her," above compare with his expression "STILL CONJOINED," on page 12.

I expect some British blockhead of the literary world to cry "Oh! Rushdie only ****** our Queen in his dream." It is all fiction. After all, we can´t hold a man accountable for his dreams. That is true, but "O pervert!" Rushdie was not dreaming when he penned those words!

ALL "WHITE" WOMEN!

Lest the commoner say that "Rusdie only lampoons the high and mighty like the Prime Minister of Britian - Maggie - and the Monarch of Britain - The Queen!" Let me remind them that he has not forgotten you, the plebeian - the ordinary Whites in the country. Nay, he honours all whites, wheresoever they abide.

This choicest piece of racism should also be highlighted with a glowing green pen and memorised:

"WHITE WOMEN - NEVER MIND FAT, JEWISH, NON-DEFERENTIAL12 WHITE WOMEN - WERE FOR ******* AND THROWING OVER. "(PAGE 261 TVS)

In Rushdie´s perverted mind, the fate of every "white women" was for ******* and throwing over. The only qualification required by Rushdie is that they be "WHITE". It does not matter their shape or size. Whether with a hooled Jewish nose or an Anglo-Saxon angular nose. Whether you can recognise their nationality or not. Whether they be English, or Irish; Scottish or Weish; German or French; American or Canadian - provided they are white! "THEY ARE ONLY GOOD FOR DISCARDING AFTER *******" SAYS RUSHDIE!"


EDIT:
This is in the book, thus the refrences!

Answer 5

Satanic what?
Sorry, but if possible, can I get a background here?
Thank you brother.

Answer 6

check out amazon.com reviews
that should help you out with any book