Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Satanic Verses controversy, also known as the Rushdie Affair, was a controversy sparked by the 1988 publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.It centered on the novel's references to the Satanic Verses (apocryphal verses of the Quran), and came to include a larger debate about censorship and religious violence.
India’s ban on the import of author Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses has been overturned by the Delhi High Court due to a remarkable situation – the original notification cannot be found ...
The Satanic Verses is the fourth novel from the Indian-British writer Salman Rushdie. First published in September 1988, the book was inspired by the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad . As with his previous books, Rushdie used magical realism and relied on contemporary events and people to create his characters.
Rushdie's publisher in India, Penguin Random House India, issued a statement Friday called the ruling a “significant new development” and adding that it was "thinking through next steps.” This week's ruling adds a new twist to Rushdie's complex relationship with India, where he was born in 1947, just before the country's independence.
Sir Salman Rushdie has forfeited his home, freedom, marriage and peace of mind due to his controversial writings. The 75-year-old Indian-born British author, whose writing led to death threats ...
[6] [9] Thousands of Christian tribals were also evicted later from East Pakistan and arrived in India as refugees. [9] A fictionalized version of the incident is the subject of Salman Rushdie's short story "The Prophet's Hair" (1981).
Since 1989, when the Iranian supreme leader of the time, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued an apostasy fatwa against the Indian-British Salman Rushdie, it has not been just the "The Satanic Verses ...
When India banned “The Satanic Verses,” Rushdie condemned the action and doubted whether his censors had even read the novel. In an open letter to then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, published in The New York Times in 1988, he alleged the book was “being used as a political football” and called the ban not only “anti-democratic, but ...