Talk:Satanic Verses

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satanic Verses article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

For deletion

I want to suggest this page for deletion, no verse does it praise these false gods, but it condemns them one verse below:

They are not but [mere] names you have named them - you and your forefathers - for which Allāh has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance. (Surah 53:23)

So please, i find this offensive and I am sure other muslims do too. Some1 ^{talk} 19:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More about it here. Some1 ^{talk} 19:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone finds this article offensive, the easiest thing to do is to not read the article. There are over 6 million articles here, try reading something else. Wikipedia is not censored, so any content that may hurt anyone's feelings will not be deleted for that sole basis. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom: not censured even if proven to be a blasphemy? - Some1 ^{talk} 09:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way under the sun, the moon, and the stars that this article about a highly notable topic will be deleted. So, do not continue wasting your time on a ridiculous errand. Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nedochan

@NEDOCHAN, The version you are pushing clearly misrepresents what Welch said. He did not say "the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication". Instead he said, "It is possible that this story is another example of historical telescoping, i.e. that a situation that was known by Muhammad's contemporaries to have lasted for a long period of time later came to be encapsulated in a story that restricts his acceptance of intercession through these goddesses to a brief period of time and places the responsibility for this departure from a strict monotheism on Satan. This interpretation is completely consistent with what is said above regarding Muhammad's gradual "emergence as a religious reformer" and with evidence from the Kur’an that a strict monotheism arose in stages over an extended period of time during Muhammad's Meccan years." Kaalakaa (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer yourself to a check user. If you are not a sockpuppet of the editor whose edits you're reinstating, I will happily engage further.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that has to do this, but if you have any suspicions about me the burden of proof is on you, please go through the procedure yourself. If you have no proof then I believe what you're doing is classified as a personal attack. Kaalakaa (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czello

Hi, @Czello. I’ve explained just above that the content in the edit you reinstated does not match its source. I've invited @NEDOCHAN to discuss the matter but he seemed to reject the invitation and asked for something unreasonable as you can see above. Could you in place of him explain why the edit you reinstated is more correct? Kaalakaa (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I incorrectly assumed the conversation between yourself and NEDOCHAN were still ongoing. If NEDOCHAN believes there's a sockpuppetry issue then they should open an WP:SPI case; otherwise I have no further comment on the sources. — Czello ^(music) 08:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding, @Czello. In that case, could you please reinstate my edit? I noticed a misrepresentation of the source in the article, so I corrected it. But it seems that NEDOCHAN doesn't like the corrections I made, and he keeps reverting them and is unwilling to engage in a discussion. To my knowledge, isn't that considered disruptive editing? Kaalakaa (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do an SPI in due course, I was just hoping I wouldn't have to waste time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted, neither out of support for your edits, but nor in opposition. NEDOCHAN's upcoming SPI should determine next steps. — Czello ^(music) 08:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kaalakaa (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czello. I have asked for an SPI here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Whodatttt NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation error

"Have you thought of al-Lāt and al-'Uzzá? And about the third deity, Manāt?" –Quran 53:19–20

The exact translation of this section from Arabic is 'Have you seen the God al-Lat and Al-uzza and the third one Manat.' the very contention is in the usage of the word 'God' which is often altered to 'the idols of', or other words to diminish the original narratological interpretation of text in it's direct and ordinary meaning. 2001:8003:2961:AD00:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed from introduction

Hey @Kaalakaa, I see that you removed a significant chunk of the introduction. While I agree that there are problems with how the information is phrased (and sourced), in my opinion it is quite problematic to basically exclude the modern Islamic view of the subject matter from the introduction. If you exclude any work from contemporary Muslim scholars as failing WP:SOURCE because they are Muslim, I think we lose an entire side of a very much alive debate on such a controversial topic, and that is detrimental to this article in particular. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Choucas Bleu, WP:SOURCE is one of our policies, and it requires us to:

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

What is meant by "independent" here according to WP:IIS is:

An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).

For example, apologetic writings by Aum Shinrikyo followers about their founder or the history of their religion clearly do not meet these criteria. And the same should apply to other religions as well. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reread some of the guidelines/policies and thought about it, and I now agree that it was right to remove this content from the introduction specifically. I suppose in the future if people feel like adding more about modern Islamic interpretations they can do it in the already existing section of the article (and source it better than what was removed for sure). Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the Shia perspective on this

You only mention Sunni opinions and Orientalist opinions. Mention the Shia opinion, which is that these narrations promoting the Gharaniq story were an Umayyad conspiracy to destroy the reputation of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The Shia also believe that the Gharaniq story's chains of narrators dtart with unreliable sources who were agents of the Umayyad dynasty. The article as it is today mentions the argument that the Muslims wouldn't slander their own prophet, and it mentions that what Muslims would have thought of as slabder may have changed over time, but it doesn't take into account the theory that the Muslims intentionally slandered their own Holy Prophet, which is the Shia theory. 37.237.197.21 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you wish to see something be covered in the article, please feel free to include such things yourself, provided they are verifiable and backed up by reliable sources. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 21:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear about this too. As it stands, Mohammed is supposed to have given a false revelation. A true prophet is held by the Jewish and Christian scriptures to be 100% accurate.

How do Moslems deal with the 100% rule? Obviously, they think Mohammed is a real prophet, so what is the explanation, outside Shia Islam? 2601:647:6680:4450:CC2F:9F8C:CD54:3053 (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum, and that this talk page's only purpose is to discuss how to improve its associated article. Thank you, Choucas Bleu (T·C) 21:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]