69 million page views

Can The Fatwa Cover Up Islam's Pre-Islamic Shame – Allah & His Daughters

Reader comment on item: Salman Rushdie and British Backbone

Submitted by Nancy Drew (United Kingdom), Jul 15, 2007 at 19:42

What is missing here is a discussion about the nature of the offensive content in the Salman Rushdie's Book - the Satanic Verses. Is this a demonstration that perhaps few of us can boast having a backbone?

The Satanic Verses originated from a passage within the Koran - that was changed or abrogated - that showed Muhammad [the Prophet] calling out to the Three Goddess or the Three daughters of Allah. These goddesses were of significances, not only because they are all named in the Koran, but they were also the Goddesses of Muhammad's own father - Abd'ullah [servant of Allah].

In Sura 53 [or there abouts] in the Koran, Muhammad called out to the Goddesses or Cranes and said something like, it is their intersession you should seek. After appearing in the first four versions of the Koran, it was finally yanked out or abrogated on the fifth. And it was explained that Muhammad called out to the Daughters because he was tempted by Satan; hence the name the Satanic Verse. Salman Rushdie knowing this, using his character Mahoud, he is told by the Angel Gibreel, that it was right to worship the Goddesses. This of course, is the point of contention were Salman Rushdie is charged with blasphemy, on writing a fictional book about the religious belief that he was brought up to follow.

That Allah did indeed have Three Daughters is cited in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and online encyclopedia like pantheon.org. The Muslims would first have to charge the early writers of the Koran with blasphemy, as well as some of the world's foremost bodies of encyclopedic knowledge with blasphemy. And besides having to protect Salman Rushdie at great cost to the British public for more than a decade and being seriously irritated by this intrusion on British sovereignty; the fact the Allah had Three Daughters was widely acknowledged among academia and Rushdie was perfectly within his right under British Law to write such a book or to use this subject in a satire, perhaps there was also a feeling that this was one intrusion too many.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)