Talk:Salman Rushdie

Satanic verses section

About the following sentence: "Many more people died in riots in Third World countries." "Third World countries"? Why would the countries be viewed under the (extremely broad and unnecessary) light of economy for such an event? I'm changing the sentece for "some countries" for its absurd implications. Anyone who knows which are the countries please do add their names. H15 H16N355 |^{K1N6 M3 (T47K)} 03:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rushdie/Lakshmi divorce

Salman Rushdie and wife Padma Lakshmi have divorced. Silverweed 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Chicopac (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rushdie is Pro-War

Hey, who got rid of the facts on Rushdie's support for the bombing and killing of innocent people in Kosovo? We must use Wikipedia to cover the truth, not censure. I will try to revert. Teetotaler

There, reverted. Rushdie's support of NATO's bombing of Kosovo is discussed by the Toronto attorney Michael Mandel in his book, "How America Gets Away With Murder". Teetotaler

This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Metamagician3000 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Teetotaler

Umm you've got that wrong. He supported the NATO bombing of Belgrade because he wanted NATO to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. So he wanted to stop the killing of innocent people in Kosovo by attacking the government in Belgrade that was killing them. 68.49.242.230 18:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ahassan05

Umm, if you look at the history of the Kosovo War you will see that the violence which Rushdie supported was targeted mostly upon innocent civilians and that during this time fighting had ceased between the KLA and the Serbian army. The bombings which Rushdie was so proud of only had a negative effect. History is writ thus. Teetotaler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Name in Arabic

Why is Rushdie's name transcribed in Arabic? This is not a native tongue of the Indian subcontinent. Sure, his names derive from Arabic, but my name, David, derives from Hebrew, would it be transliterated in an article about me? Perhaps Urdu (which uses a similar but NOT identical alphabet to Arabic) or another native language of the Indian subcontinent would be more appropriate? Or leave it without a transcription?

Please sign your comments. The alphabet IS urdu because it's basically the same as arabic (except for a few letters) and more closer to persian. But since Urdu names are usually from Arabic/Persian, his name can be perceived to be in any of these three.

-- Basawala 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

"Perhaps Urdu (which uses a similar but NOT identical alphabet to Arabic". Completely false, Urdu uses the same identical alphabet to Arabic in addition to several other letters. 130.113.128.11 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Therefore proving the OP correctedness: "similar but NOT identical alphabet". Alphabet is a grouping. Adding letters means the grouping is not identical. Thank you for supplying the source of difference between the two: the addition of letters. H15 H16N355 |^{K1N6 M3 (T47K)} 03:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

His name is Jewish. His ancestors were converted Jews to Islam. 13.3.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.79.209.153 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

ROFL --212.71.37.107 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Being born in India, would he not have dual nationality, not just UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.62.36 (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be dual nationalityKniwor (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Career section

I have deleted the entire Career section. It was copied word-for-word from this site: http://www.octc.kctcs.edu/crunyon/CE/Koran-Rushdie/Rushdie/Timeline.htm And a cursory search suggests that at least some of this material was copied verbatim from yet other sources. --ShelfSkewed talk 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I restored the original version, with the older Career section, which is what I was trying to do at the same time the editor who imported the copyvio material was still editing. It's back the way it was.--ShelfSkewed talk 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

He converted to islam

in the section "the controversy of the satanic verses" it's a bit ambiguous. it says that he converted to islam, but wasn't he raised as a muslim. someone might want to clarify that he switched to atheism or something in that general direction.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.222.51.64 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

On Christmas 1990 he converted formally to Islam, and then recanted a few months later. Ahassan05 18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ahassan05

Ethnicity?

What ethnic group does Rushdie belong to? Hindi and Urdu aren't restricted to any one group, and of course neither is English. 74.232.226.191 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

He is of the Kashmiri_people.--Steven X 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

<two irrelevant posts removed> Abecedare 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6757369.stm - someone should add this? 81.86.44.208 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add 'Sir' to the front of his name. This has precedent, Sir Ian Botham recieved his knighthood at the same time and his page has added 'Sir'. Doktor Waterhouse 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie is now Sir Salman Rushdie - and honour well deserved, in the light of Western thought and development.

In Britain and in the free world, we must take a stand for our way of life. Freedom of speech is the right of the individual, which includes the right to criticise and the right to satire. The Islamic world has to understand that we hold these things dear.

Even the Encyclopedia Britannica would be seen as offensive to Islam, because it states that Allah, the God of Arabia had three daughters. [Book 22/Islam/pg.105] And according to the Encyclopedia’s sales staff, its volumes would be shredded on any attempt to bring them into Saudi Arabia; as the Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in the Kingdom.

The problem for Islam is that it strictly holds that there should only be one God. Then the Three Daughters (Cranes) show up, who Muhammad himself called out to in the Koran Sura 53 or the Satanic Verse. With all due respect to history, these were the Gods of Muhammad’s father and his tribe the Quraish, in a religion centered on the Kaaba in Mecca, in fact it was called Kaaba, were hajj or pilgrimage to place, but with many more Gods [En.Brit. Book 22/Islam/pg.105].

There seems evidence that Islam, developed over the years to become what is today and as the earliest four versions of the Koran showed Muhammad calling out to worship the Three Goddesses of his clan. However as Islam developed, and became more strict, it then had to root out practices or verses in the Koran which did not fit well with its image. Sura 53 in the Koran was abrogated or changed to remove or muddle its significance, but there were other Koranic verses which were abrogated or changed, such as those calling for even more violence and bloodshed of the non-believer.

--What evidence is there that Islam "developed" into being what it is today? As a Muslim, I believe that my religion never changed and that there is only one version of the Quran. (If there is another version of the Quran, where can I find it? Answer me if you are a person of truth). Please stop desecrating my religion and defecating on my beliefs like Salman Rushdie did. I thought Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia. Please delete from your encyclopedia the claim that Muhammad at some stage accepted the three pagan Gods because that is false. Please stop spreading malicious lies through Wikipedia. How would you like it if we Muslims were to write an encyclopedia and say that the holocaust did not happen and that the US invasion of Iraq was solely to gain control of Iraqi oilfields? In which museum can I find the Satanic Verses if they truly exist? Can the descendants of Muhammad sue Salman Rushdie for libel? -- Arbibi Ashoy.

Strangely a little know fact is that the Three Old Ladies still guard the Kaaba, until this day; showing that these were not just any Gods. The Daughter Goddess, Al-Manat was worshipped in Pre-Islamic times as a black stone at Mecca.

--The black stone is not worshipped. It is a marker that traditionally you had to touch to confirm that you had performed the journey (Something like putting the ball past the net when playing soccer). Nowadays nobody gets to touch it anyway because there are too many people but suffice that you have it within sight. What is the matter with you people, why do you like to rub us Muslims the wrong way? -- Arbibi Ashoy

To read more

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/manat.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/allat.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/u/uzza.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/allah.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egyptoo (talk • contribs).

As other people have noted above, WP is not a soapbox. I'm pleased Rushdie's got a K, too, but this isn't the place to write celebratory essays. I'm sure we'd all be grateful if you could confine yourself to making comments that are directly relevant to producing a NPOV, encyclopedic article.Bedesboy 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He is a Knight Bachelor. No post-nominals. Not an OBE as far as I know. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is he a knight yet? Does this "transformation" take place on the announcement in the honours list, or when he receives the accolade?--Eva ^bd 16:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question! BBC is already using, "Sir" for him, so I guess the transformation occurs at the announcement. By the way, Kittybrewster is correct that Salman (or Salmon as the official announcement spells it !) is a Knight Bachelor, which means that he has not been accorded membership into a order of chivalry and in particular is not an OBE. Abecedare 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Perhaps Wikipedia should not be using "Sir" just yet?

The following are quotations from The Guardian online article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2106965,00.html

Wednesday June 20, 2007

Rushdie furore stuns honours committee

No date has been set for the investiture. Two ceremonies are due to take place next month but they are likely to be for those who were named in the New Year's honours list. Rushdie could become Sir Salman in the next batch of investitures between October and December or early next year.

Do you only gain the title after the ceremony? (Compare Edward VIII, who was most definitely a king despite never having a coronation.) Marnanel 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The title is gained upon appointment. That wasn't always the case, but it was so confusing as to who used what when that they decided to just allow use immediately.--Ibagli (Talk) 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Muslim critics

With all the vandalism that this article is getting at the moment, it is hard to see who added this, which is a good-faith edit.

His biggest critics were his peers, such as Roald Dahl (author of children's books) who called him "a dangerous opportunist", Germaine Greer who called him "an Englishman with dark skin" and Hugh Trevor-Roper who said "I would not shed a tear if some British Muslims should waylay him in a dark street". (http://weeklywire.com/ww/02-08-99/tw_book1.html)

I have removed it because:

1. I don't know if the Weekly Wire is a reputable source.
2. It is not clear if the quotes were made about the Satanic Verses or about Rushdie's career more generally.
3. It seems from reading the article that these quotations were gathered from elsewhere, possibly in very different contexts. The named individuals were not interviewed for the article, but collected.
4. These are far from Rushdie's "biggest critics".

If the original sources coudl be found, they woudl be interesting additions. Thank you for your effort. BrainyBabe 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That addition was made in this edit by 60.50.112.46 at 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC). --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. It figures it is an anon. BrainyBabe 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Scottshen re-added it with a slight rewording, which took care of item 4 above, but not the others, and made the last quote harsher than it was intended (by removing qualifying phrases within the sentence, and then removing the ellipses that indicated their omission). Please discuss here. Getting to the actual quotations in their context would be the first step towards encyclopedic standards. BrainyBabe 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dahl's comment was made in a February 28 1989 letter to The New York Times; the comment is mentioned in the 1994 Times piece 'Roald the Rotten', by Ann Hulbert, but I couldn't find the entire letter itself. --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trevor-Roper's comments appeared in The Independent, June 10 1989. Though in what context, I'm not still not sure--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find the actual source of Greer's comment, but it was widely quoted outside of anti-Rushdie sources, often as "a megalomaniac, an Englishman with dark skin". Others who, at the time of the Satanic Verses controversy, were harshly critical of Rushdie included Paul Johnson, Roy Hattersley, Norman Tebbit, and Auberon Waugh.[1] --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall John Le Carre as also being harshly critical of Rushdie at the time, specifically saying something about how his actions endangered the mail room girl at Rushdie's publisher. Le Carre and Rushdie had something of a public spat over it. Alexwoods 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort towards more credible sources. However, there has been no progress with points 2 & 3 , whether the quotes were about the book or the man, and also importantly with regard to their original context. BrainyBabe 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

niqab controversy?

"In 2006, Rushdie stated that he supported comments by the Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, criticising the wearing of the niqab. Rushdie stated that his three sisters would never wear the veil, that it was a limitation on women. He said, "I think the battle against the veil has been a long and continuing battle against the limitation of women, so in that sense I'm completely on [Straw's] side."[18]"

Did Rushdie attract any significant critism for his opinions on the niqab? this section just states his opinion and doesn't have anything saying why this is a "controversy". Without an active dispute or argument it isn't controversial and therefore it's just being used as a tar-brush tactic and is POV. Elmo 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Rushdie that was controversial here; it was Straw. Straw criticised the niqab; British muslims criticised him. Rushdie intervened in the controversy on Straw's side. Richard Gadsden 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag icon

I've changed the flag icon by his birthplace from that of India to that of British India, since India gained independence from Britain in August 1947, while Rushdie was born about two months prior to the event. Rashed 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that was a nice thing to do because he was Born in India and Had INDIAN nationality till he became UK naturalized citizen.You are only showing colonial mindset while doing such a thing.India07 12:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood Rashed's point, India07; when Rushdie was born, India was under control of the British. Therefore, the flag was changed to mirror the flag that was used at that point. I don't necessarily agree with the placement of flags in Biography infoboxes, but Rashed's point is historically valid. Personal opinion regarding British owned India is irrelevant. This is a needless point to make, however, because the flag has been changed back to India's without discussion. María (críticame) 12:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks fr the answer,The point i was trying to make was that we are living in a world where there is no British India and nobody is proud to hoist the British india flag.Maybe Rashid wants that the birth of Rushdie's country include present day Pakistan Also.Ok but the Flag is Indian so I am not complaining.India07 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a flag representing the place of birth of Salman Rushdie, it should be that of British India as that was the country of his birth. Showing the current Indian flag denies a historical aspect of Indian history and is anachronistic. Nobody is under the impression that British India exists in any form today. Edward Said's article has the British mandate flag for Palestine despite the non-existence of that entity today. Wikipedia should reflect the reality and Salman Rushdie was born when India was historically a British colony. Jayran 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a fact and if an icon is to be used then it should be the correct one. Also, Rushdie himself made much of this distinction in his book Midnights Children. simonthebold 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't anybody changed this yet? I guess I will.--Lairor 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Rushdie liberally uses Bombay film Gossip magazines to write, sometimes word to word. I have seen this in Satanic Verses. Here one paragaph talks about how an actress, jilted by her superstar boyfriend, behaves when he is seriously injured. Rushdie copied a Stardust or Star & style article word to word about Rekha after Amitabh Bacchan's accident in 1982 . My problem here is not that the charecters in the novel are similar to real life people but plagiarizing text). The other example concern's Moor's last Sigh. Here also an acress takes part in a festival procession (Ganesh festival, I believe). The decription was word to word about Bombay film actressPadmini Kolhapure dancing in the festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.96.126 (talk • contribs)

Major Literary work

Can a small description of Booker prize winning Midnight's Children and its plot be added to the above referred section and the controversy it caused by attacking then PM Indira Gandhi

A sufficient description of Midnight's Children's Booker Prize win and subsequent success are listed already in the section; any plot details, etc, is at the novel's article. I have never heard of such a controversy. Do you have a source? María (críticame) 12:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Mrs. Gandhi sued Rushdie because he had implied in Midnight Children that Mrs. Gandhi neglected her husband,, Feroz Gandhi.

Another work of importance, not original, but edited, is the anthology of Indian English writing Mirrorwork: 50 years of Indian writing. 1947 - 1997 (New York: Holt, 1997), but I can't enter the bibliographical data on the page. It caused a stir among 'vernacular' (i.e., non-English) Indian writers for the not very flattering remarks about the value of non-English Indian literature in comparison to that in English. Vidyasagara (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rocky bin Horror Picture Jihad

The anti-Rushdie film International Guerrillas is like Osma bin Laden mets the Rocky Horror picture show.

There are some pictures of the film posted at

http://weirdostuff.blogspot.com/2005/12/pakistani-jihad-musicals-vol1.html

--Wowaconia 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation errors.

There are two glaring errors which I am sure Salman himself would not approve of:

"...by opening a chain of Casino's and Disco's in the country..."

The two apostrophes should NOT be there, not to mention the fact that those two words should not be capitalized either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.107.127.32 (talk • contribs).

Fixed.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

rushdie in popular culture

this is bull. all of those bullet points are redundant, unimportant and.. quiet stupid. get rid of them, please. who needs to know that rushdie co-hosted a show?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.130.91.47 (talk • contribs).

That's a fair point. The section isn't labeled Trivia, but that's what it amounts to. The worthwhile items should be integrated into other sections of the article, and the rest ought to go.--ShelfSkewed Talk 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call! Abecedare 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read this before I re-added a couple. I agree that most are worthless, but thought BJD and Mehta were worth keeping -- feel free to change the wording. BrainyBabe 13:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with those items going back in with the context you provided, although the Bridget Jones item still doesn't strike me as particularly significant. How does Rushdie's cameo constitute "public discourse"? Was there anything about it that had a direct bearing on his life or work? --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "public discourse" isn't quite the right phrase. I was searching for an overarching first sentence that would slot the examples into a framework. The point about the film cameo is that he appears as himself at a literary launch party, parodying the perception of famous authors as spending their time hobnobbing with even more famous celebrities and drinking champagne. I believe that, at the time the film was made, he had not been out of hiding all that long. It's interesting that that is one way he chose to reposition himself in the public eye. BrainyBabe 22:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reviled"

"Rushdie was raised a Muslim but is reviled as an apostate in Muslim countries, especially Pakistan." It is sufficient to say that he is no longer a practising Muslim. "Reviled" is totally unnecessary. Someone with expertise in writing about Islam, please re-phrase it appropriately. Lfh 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, when did he actually renounce Islam and in what way? That is surely important biographical information. Lfh 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you entirely underestimate the strength of feeling Muslims around the world feel about him. There were mass riots, deaths and death threats. Muslims don't tend to be particularly tolerant of apostates; see Apostasy in Islam.

revile (verb)

reviled as a traitor criticize, censure, condemn, attack, inveigh against, rail against, castigate, lambaste, denounce; slander, libel, malign, vilify, abuse; informal knock, slam, pan, crucify, roast, tear into, badmouth, dis, pummel; formal excoriate, calumniate.

I feel it is an appropriate word for a strong sense of feeling. simonthebold 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what the word means; my point is I don't think it is a very good sentence. For one thing, it jumps from one issue to another - his childhood to the present day - without offering any information about what happened in between. Why did he renounce Islam? When? What has he said about it? What have other people said about it?

Second, no supporting evidence is given. "Muslim countries" covers an awful lot of places - are we including, say, Turkey, Albania, Somalia in all this? If I want to know that lots of Muslims have bad things to say about Rushdie I can go to any discussion forum; if I want to see three-second clips of somebody setting fire to something I can watch the news; but surely Wikipedia can provide a bit more detailed, referenced, contextualised insight into the views that various Muslims have about him.

And for the record I do think "reviled" is a needlessly emotive word. I can't recall reading it in other articles about widely unpopular figures, such as Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Lfh 10:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the sentence and added the section because I felt for such a controversial figure his personal beliefs has some relevance. I found a real lack of substantive information on the period between his childhood and current position. Feel free to do the research and flesh out the sentence.

Specifically in relation to word 'reviled' I feel it is appropriate for the reasons stated. You say that the revulsion is not necessarily felt in all Muslim countries - you may be right - however in the absence of contrary evidence I suspect that in this case the generalisation is accurate enough to portray the issue in the context of the article. simonthebold 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Name - his is now a Sir...

I propose to change the title of the article to 'Sir Salman Rushdie', and the caption above his picture to 'Sir Salman Rushdie'. He was, after all, knighted, and even if people disagree with this we cannot deny that it happened.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.92.236 (talk • contribs)

So who's denying it? The first four words of the article are "Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie", and there's an entire section on his knighthood. But your proposal won't be adopted. See WP:NCNT and WP:COMMONNAME.--ShelfSkewed Talk 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) :: Wikipedia has detailed guidelines for such articles. See the relevant guideline for article title (bullet point 5) and for article's lead sentence (bullet point 4). So we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. Abecedare 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rushdie appears to be mis-spelled in Devanagari at top of page

Please Note, at the top of the page, Salman's sur-name is spelled: रश्दी. In Hindi press, I've normally seen it spelled as: रुश्दी.

I went to a few online news sources to double check. Please check the following URLS to see the latter spelling in regular use.

http://www.jagran.com/news/nationalnews.aspx?id=3483720 http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/entertainment/story/2007/06/070616_rushdie_knighthood.shtml

5amuel 10:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the following sources spell it as रश्दी (which also sounds phonetically correct to me):

• Navbharat Times
• Yahoo (Hindi)
• BBC (Hindi)!
• Dainik Jagran
• Lokmanch
• Bhartiya Sahitya (a hindi literature review site)

So I vote for retaining the current version. Abecedare 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Book discusses Rushdie and his literary work

This book should be added in further study or response to the controversy created by Rushdie's novels:

RUSHDIE: Haunted by his unholy ghosts

This book must be taken in context as a treatise written by a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community offering a Muslim perspective. That is to say it is naturally written from a hostile standpoint for a Muslim audience and tends towards propaganda. For example the introduction makes reference to the Satanic Verses as a 'so-called novel'. Whilst the autor may disagree with the ideas and themes of the novel it is undoubtably a novel. I only read a few sections of the pdf presented; there are factual errors, for example claiming that East, West was a children's book and implying that Salman Rushdie was trying to pervert young readrs with sexual themes. simonthebold 08:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Link

Link #15 should link to:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article414681.ece [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timur1 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for spotting that! The link has been updated.Abecedare 03:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Norwegian publisher

I propose that the attempted assassination of Norwegian Publisher William Nygaard is included in the article, or at least in a descriptive fashion in the links-section. After publishing Satanic Verses, he was given protection for a period of time, but was on October 11, 1993 shot outside his home in Oslo with three bullets and left for dead. He recovered after three months in hospital - the assassin has not yet been captured as of fall 2007, this might be one of the first (and hopefully last) islamic aggressions against free speech on Norwegian soil. I am not able to include this myself, as I've just registered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjern (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The smear film: A mistake?

"The film was popular with Pakistani audiences, and it "presents Rushdie as a Rambo-like figure pursued by four Pakistani guerillas"[23] and surrounded by the Israeli armed forces.[24] Rushdie is portrayed as "a smug, bespectacled butcher in a double-breasted suit, who lives in palatial splendor, [and who] personally slaughters his enemies with a huge blood-soaked sword".[25]"

It I don't think Rushdie is a rambo-like figure if he is a smug bespectacled butcher in a double-breasted suit. Maybe the hero of the film is supposed to be the rambo-like character? I haven't seen it, but I doubt anyone would want to portray Rushdie as a Rambo-like character (even if they hate him).

Lewi5will 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Atheist?

I understand that he's a former Muslim, calls for reform in Islam, and has held beliefs that do not condone the muslim view of God, but did he ever say that he is an atheist? I haven't read anything to say he is, unless I am missing something... Anyone? IronCrow (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens quotes Rushdie early in Hitch-22 as saying something like "The title God is Not Great is one word too long." Hitch and Rushdie were good pals, so we're left to assume that the word "Great" is the one SR had in mind. Mashapiro (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a written source for it but I heard Rushdie, on February 26 tell a large audience that he is an atheist. The event was teh Baltimore speaker's series and he indicated that he has told other audiences the same information.

In Joseph Anton: A Memoir (Rushdie's autobiography), he repeatedly and emphatically states that he's a lifelong atheist. Deluno (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

salman rushdie...the unknown in the muslim world

$Insertformulahere$ most mulsim and arab novelists and philosophers lack essential knowledge about there so called enemy (salman).majority of them didnt even read a single line from his (provocative) novel (satanic verses).

Their loss. He should be their admired Grand Old Boy if their hope is literary greatness. Chicopac (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie and Ayub Masih

From Wikipedia's Persecution of Christians Article: "Ayub Masih, a Christian, was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in 1998. He was accused by a neighbor of stating that he supported British writer, Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Lower appeals courts upheld the conviction. However, before the Pakistan Supreme Court, his lawyer was able to prove that the accuser had used the conviction to force Masih's family off their land and then acquired control of the property. Masih has been released.[35]"

Does anyone know Rushdie's reaction? I mean, did he care or does he even know? Though it may not be needed in the article, I was wondering about his thoughts on this. IronCrow (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

a distorted, incompetent piece of trash

i shortened the section on the pakistani movie again, this article does no need spend almost more space on it then it does on rushdie's books. all the info that is needed is there, start an article about the movie if you want to...trueblood (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your objection just seems to be your own personal POV. You destroyed my edits on this subject and now you wan't to destroy another editors edits. You do not own this article. Colin4C (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

no offence meant, i shortened it because this article is about rushdie, his work, his life and so on, why don't you start an article about the movie itself, you could recicle all the info from here, i promise i will not touch that article...

trueblood (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't YOU make some positive edits for a change - like on Rushdie's books you mentioned. I am sick to death of editors who glory in deleting the referenced, relevent work of other editors because of some idiosyncratic POV and contribute absolutely nothing themselves. Colin4C (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

just for the record, i did contribute to this article quite while ago, so that may be why i feel attached to it and want it to focus on rushdie and his work.trueblood (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

being more specific re: is he dead or alie

I'm assuming this rushdie character is not alive, so I'm being brave enough to indicate this in his birthdate (.e. 1947-present). I'm not all that familiar with the policies etc. so i hope i'm not breaching any npov issues. cheers all, --ToyotaPanasonic (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no NPOV issues, but wikipedia's manual of style has a different recommendation (see this specifically), so I am reverting your well-intentioned edit. Abecedare (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He is still alive. He went on the Bill Maher show a while back, and only a week ago, he was on...I believe it was the Colbert Report. This brings me to a question. Is the fatwa for his death still active? This article seems to indicate that it is, but on the Colbert Report, he said that the fatwa had been lifted.

Archangel Gibreel

Is it correct to use the transliterated form "Gibreel", as is done in the article? Is that from classical Arabic? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gabriel is Gibreel in Arabic. However, it is pronounced Jibreel, because Arabic lacks the 'G' sound one would find in words like Gabriel or Gandalf (Unless you are talking about Egyptian Arabic. Egyptians lack the J sound in their dialect, but they have the hard 'G' sound). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.48.19.93 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tendon condition

I do realize that the entire sentence about the tendon condition might have been written in ironic (wink-wink) mode, but, for the benefit of the more literal readers and in the interests of accuracy in reporting, I have nevertheless put "tendon condition" in quotes (see personal life). In other words, do we really know that is what it was, or is this another euphemism (like deviated septum for nose job) for the kind of cosmetic surgery the rich and famous resort to? If it is the latter, he has good company in his much-scalpeled ex of cooking show fame, and friend Martin Amis who reportedly spent 20,000 pounds getting his teeth fixed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A question

Im not trying to be a pain here, Im just interested in the honorifics policy on wikipedia looking at islam articles, You cant place PBUH or SAW or refer to Muhammed as a prophet, yet you can use the honorific Sir when refering to a person-an honorific that isnt recognised outside of Britain technically anyway.-Why is the policy so?86.156.52.67 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting if provacative question, would be interesting to know the answer. Anyone? 217.33.127.162 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the policy regarding honorifics, but as far as I know you can refer to Muhammad as an "Islamic prophet". I know because I am the one who promoted the article Muhammad in Mecca with that title a few months back, on DYK section of Main Page. He is recognized as a prophet in Islam, and there is nothing wrong with calling him that. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Muhammad article has a faq linked off the talk page which discusses the use of PBUH in detail. In a nutshell, it is consensus that adding pbuh as an "honorific" breaks NPOV. As a portion of his biography, the Muhammad article describes him as the prophet of Islam as this article points out that Rushdie is a knight bachelor of the British empire. It does not continue to label Rushdie as Sir after the initial introduction, which maintains neutrality to those who don't recognize the british gentry or whatnot. In a related manner, I scanned 20 or so other persons in the knighthood category and determined that the practice is to boldface "Sir" so I undid the unbolding. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

AIDS Sutra: Untold Stories From India?

AIDS Sutra: Untold Stories From India by Salman Rushdie, Kiran Desai, William Dalrymple and others [3], should this be mentioned in the article/bibliography? feydey (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Traditionalists

Just exactly which traditionalists are Mr. Rushdie referring to in the quotation? Shouldn't the "traditionalists" link, lead to a relevant article and not;

[4]Traditionalism may refer to:

The systematic emphasis on the value of Tradition.
The Traditionalist School of thought, an esoteric movement espoused by René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon et al. See also Radical Traditionalism.
Catholic Traditionalism, a current within Roman Catholicism.
Carlism, a Spanish political movement in the 19th and 20th century.
Traditionalist world view (American), a world view associated with American cultural conservativism.
The Traditionalist School in 20th century Dutch architecture.
A current in music, exemplified by Ralph Shapey.

None of which truly explains which traditionalists he means. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pakistani Film

Would be great if someone could mention the title of the film in the article, as this information is sorely missing right now and was the reason i checked out the article in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.36.186 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

British Indian ?

why is he given the indian nationality in his name? he has chosen to be british and should be termed as a british not an indian. or Indian born of british nationality currently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.161.206 (talk • contribs)

He is called "British Indian" because he fits the definition; more importantly that is what reliable sources call him; and most importantly, he self-identifies as a "British Indian novelist" (see The New York Times Guide to the Arts of the 20th Century : 1980-1999, page 2650). Abecedare (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't Salman Rushie look Indian?

I know India is a very ethnically diverse country, but I've rarely seen Indians who look like him. Is his family originally native to India or are they immigrants? I heard once that his ancestors came from Iran, and so that could explain him coming from a Shi'a Muslim family (when the vast majority of Indians are Sunni), his white skin and fairly European looks. Can someone explain where Rushie is originally from, and what Indian ethnic group he does belong to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The same reason why Greta Scacchi pictured here: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/26/article-1022053-0163B7F800000578-981_468x636.jpg doesn't look Italian. All Italians are meant to look like this : http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/italy/corrada_fortuna.jpg OKAY? every single one of them! Hec, what planet are you on?

Salman Rushdie has written about his family origins several times, in his book of essays titled Step Across This Line, as well as in interviews related to his novel Shalimar the Crown. His fathers surname was Rushdie, his mother's maiden name was Butt (name). He notes that he has some family in Kashmir region in several of these sources. Whether these origins mean he looks "typically Indian" is a somewhat loaded question. From an Indian standpoint, Iranis, Parsis, or Bene Israel are not at all uncommon in a place like Mumbai, although they may appear different from the average corner shop owner or gas station attendant, that many in the west associate with "typical India." Rushdies origins have occasionally been a point of projection from the viewpoints of various critics, positing questionable theories that he is, for instance, of Jewish descent, for example, to somehow justify what they view as his islamophobia. He appears to be simply from a upper-class, muslim background, including potential ancestors who may have been: Kashmiri people Muhajir Pakistan Punjabi people or Pashtun people. 75.22.195.80 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people in Kashmir look very European, even have blue eyes. I have read a theory according to which they are descendants of Alexanders Macedonian army, but i do not know whether this is plausible.--Georgius (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox

Salman Rushdie is of Indian origin, but he does not currently hold Indian "nationality" - he's a British national. The infobox in this article should reflect this, as should the list in the Booker Prize article. -- 144.32.53.40 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed, agreed but I have left British-Indian in the lead. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

satanic verses

this article does'nt evaluate salman rushdie objectively. the satanic verses conterversy has given him fame while several other english writers may have been ignored due to their unconterversial writing.

     please comment.
  i have read a article by british author, which states that salman rushdie deliberately profited from the notoriety and conterversy of

his book. his worting has been criticised as being sub-standard. i am sorry that i can't give details of the source

V.Srinivas -- 28-02-2012  117.213.211.113 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Since one of his books won the Booker of Bookers, there would have to be pretty substantial criticism to warrant inclusion. The vast majority of criticism relates to the Satanic Verses controversy, which has a large in the article. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No criticism section?

Shouldnt there be a section for the critique of his literary work? I recollect reading something on Times of India recently... Shaad lko (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the critique was for The Satanic Verses. If you meant that, edit here. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

quick note concerning a missing link

"literary works"

......Rushdie has published many short stories, including those collected in East, West (1994).... reference to East, West should link to internal wiki page found here: [[5]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.40.179 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing category

He is missing from Category:James Tait Black Memorial Prize recipients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.173 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2012‎

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Why is the poor guy's signature there? Are there no limits to invasion of privacy? 202.93.215.120 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing categories

He belongs both in Category:20th-century novelists and Category:21st-century novelists. There are less obvious novelists than him in those categories.

 Done--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Error

Last line of the lead section. His most recent book is Joseph Anton: A Memoir, an account of his life in the wake of the Satanic Verses controversy.

The book is called The Satanic Verses. The controversy refers to the book. This should read His most recent book is Joseph Anton: A Memoir, an account of his life in the wake of The Satanic Verses controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2012‎ (UTC)

 Not done In this case, where the lowercase the is required to refer to the controversy (i.e. "in the wake of the...controversy"), the The in the title is correctly elided.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The book is called The Satanic Verses, not Satanic Verses. Satanic Verses is something else entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2012‎ (UTC)

How about changing the present "an account of his life in the wake of the Satanic Verses controversy" to "an account of his life in the wake of the controversy over The Satanic Verses"? Favonian (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea! :D That would certainly solve any complications. --86.40.98.29 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What 86.40.98.29 said. I'll go ahead and change it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia article on Salman Rushdie needs attention

It's good to see that this article has many contributors. I've noticed however that Wikipedia's Simple English article on Salman Rushdie at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie is much in need of attention - imbalanced, focused on the fatwa & his alleged wrongdoings. Could more knowledgable editors please contribute? There's much more room for improvement there for the same amount of effort as may be spent here (although of course, I hope the excellent work here continues also). Thanks. Deluno (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

British Raj

In the infobox, his birthplace reads "Bombay, Bombay Presidency, British Raj". Please change it to "Bombay, Bombay Presidency, British India". The British Raj was the name given to the rule, but Bombay and the provinces were under the crown and belonged to Britain. 117.192.208.199 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Rivertorch (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#Early_life_and_family_background First sentence is incorrect. Salman Rushdie is not the only child. He has 3 sisters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmb1oQcRmkM at 0:10:36 E22881 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed now. The article has been subject to a lot of vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up! Rivertorch (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)